LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



Chap 
Shelf 



r&h 



3 



s> 



PRESENTED BY 



.ULCL. 




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 



" And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, * * whosoever doeth 

any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." 

Exodus xxxi, 15. 

"One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth 
every day alike. let every man be fully persuaded in his own 
mind." — Paul. 

11 Every year, even as I speak, religious men are put in jail in Ken- 
tucky, Virginia, and the Cakolinas for keeping Saturday instead of 
Sunday." — Rev. Mr. Hickox, Baptist. 



THE LORD'S DAY 



OR MAN'S? 



A PUBLIC DISCUSSION 

BETWEEN 

BYRON SUNDERLAND, D. D. 

AND 

W. A. CROFFUT, Ph. D. 

AT WASHINGTON, D. C, AS REPORTED IN THE WASHINGTON 

DAILY POST FROM JANUARY 27 TO 

APRIL 17, 1896. 

(WITH SUNDRY RECENT POEMS.) 



Truth Seeker Company, 
28 Lafayette Place, New York. 

( 






WRITINGS OF W. A. CROFFUT.' 



Histoky of Connecticut During the Rebellion. 891 
pages ; plates 58. Price $5. Ledyard Bill, New 
York, Publisher, 1869. 

Helping Hand for American Homes. Introduction by 
Horace Greeley. 821 pages; 117 illustrations. Price 
$4 Wilstach & Co., Cincinnati, Publishers, 1870. 

Bourbon Ballads ; Humorous Political Songs. 100 
pages. N. Y. Tribune, 1881. Second edition. 10 
cents. 15196 

Deseret, or a Saint's Afflictions. An opera. Music 
by Dudley Buck. First produced in Brooklyn, 
N. Y., 1880. 

A Midsummer Lark (verse). Henry Holt & Co., Pub- 
lishers, 1883. (Leisure Hour Series, No. 150.) Pp. ^ 
270. Price $1.25. 

The Vanderbilts and the Story of Their Fortune. 
Belford, Clarke & Co., Publishers. Pp. 325. Price 
$1.50. 

The Prophecy, and Other Poems. Lovell Bros., New 
York, publishers. 180 pages. Price 50 cents. 

The Lord's Day— or Man's? The Truth Seeker, New 
York, Publisher. 152 pages. Price 25 cents. 



washington, d. c. 
Gibson Bros., Printers and Bookbinders. 

1897. 




A WORD EXPLANATOEY. 



It was in the first months of 1896 that Dr. Byron 
Sunderland and I became mixed up in this amicable dis- 
cussion. We were old friends and on receiving his 
challenge I recalled how gallantly he had fought for 
freedom to think and to speak when his pro-slavery 
church sought to muzzle him during the early days of 
the rebellion. How this verbal duel began and ended is 
made obvious in the following pages — the letters of Dr. 
Sunderland and my own here reprinted verbatim from 
the Washington Daily Post. It is pleasant to add that 
our cordial friendship suffered no interruption through- 
out an exchange of views which disclosed antipodal 
differences, and that the discussion served to reveal very 
attractively Dr. Sunderland's manly honesty and gentle 
and genial tolerance. 

A debate which is chiefly contentious and disputatious 
seldom serves to illuminate a subject or to change an 
opinion, but it seems to me that the cause of truth may 
often be promoted by a friendly discussion in which the 
parties, while sincerely seeking to impress upon the 
reader what they believe to be the facts in the case, treat 
each other with mutual consideration and respect. It 



iv A Word Explanatory. 

may be added that no man is qualified to discuss any 
question unless his conclusions are in such a fluid state 
that he is willing to change them in accordance with 
evidence and to adopt new conclusions without flinching. 
As Dr. Sunderland says in letter No. X, "Wherever the 
truth leads, there every true man will follow." A corol- 
lary of this proposition is that to attain the highest re- 
sults no belief should be held to be sacred and no tradi- 
tion should be considered equal to testimony. In seek- 
ing correct conclusions, we should profit by the injunc- 
tion of Thomas Jefferson : 

" You must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and 
neither believe nor reject anything because any other 
person rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the 
oracle, and you are answerable not for the rightness, 
but for the uprightness of its decision." 

In utter confidence, therefore, I send this booklet 
forth, indifferent as to whether Dr. Sunderland or I be 
deemed to have the better of this particular argument, 
but hoping that thought will be so stimulated that 
justice will at last prevail, when no citizen shall be re- 
quired to worship or to pay the expenses of others' wor- 
ship, and when every day of the week shall be solemnly 

dedicated to the service of man. 

W. A. CKOFFUT. 

Washington, D. C, 

140 B st., N. E. 



INTRODUCTION BY COLONEL INGERSOLL. 

This discussion about the sacredness of Sunday will 
certainly do good. The readers will find that Christians 
have no evidence even tending to show that the first day 
of the week was ever sanctified by any pretended Jewish 
god, or by Christ or any of his apostles. They will find 
that the Rev. Dr. Sunderland relies on quibbles, infer- 
ences, dodges, evasions, subterfuges, and assertions — 
that he has been driven to the pit and pushed in, and 
that he lost not only his cause, but his candor. They 
will also find that Dr. Croffut has stated his case with 
clearness, and defended his statements with facts, so 
that it is impossible for any sensible man to read this 
discussion without seeing and admitting that the Rev. 
Dr. Sunderland was overmatched and overwhelmed. 

But I must admit that the reverend gentleman was 
honest. Nothing but sincerity could place such im- 
plicit reliance on absurdity. How is it possible for a 
space of time to be holy? Can time be moral or 
immoral? Can it be vicious or virtuous? Can one 
hour, or one day, be better than another? Can we 
divide the days into sacred and profane ? Christians tell 
us that Jehovah made the seventh day sacred, because 
on that day he rested from his labor. According to 
them he had worked for six days, during which he 
created the universe. This resting of Jehovah is the first 
reason given in the Bible for the sacredness of the 
seventh day. 



vi Introduction by Colonel Ingersoll. 

Is this a good reason ? We now know that Jehovah 
did not create the world in six days. Even Christians 
admit this, and say that the word " days " should have 
been translated " periods " — unmeasured spaces of time. 
If Jehovah rested on the seventh "period," how did that 
affect the seventh day"? Undoubtedly the writer of 
Genesis believed that Jehovah commenced work on 
Monday morning, did his best for six days, and then 
took a rest ; and he thought that men ought to follow 
the example set by God. Christians now admit that 
the writer of Genesis was mistaken about the six days, 
but still insist on the sacredness of the seventh day. 

We now know that Jehovah did not create the world 
— that he had nothing to do with it, and that he did not 
rest on the seventh day or the seventh " period." We 
now know that matter, substance, is eternal — that it 
never was created and that it can never be destroyed. 
This being so, the first reason given for the sacredness 
of the Sabbath — of the seventh day — is left without any 
foundation. It makes no difference what men have said 
— what they believe — what has been written — about the 
sacredness of the seventh day ; the first reason given is 
absurd and idiotic. 

But there is another reason given in the Bible. The 
Sabbath is declared to be holy because on that day 
Jehovah delivered the children of Israel from the 
Egyptians. Is this a good reason ? In the first place, 
is it true that the Hebrews were delivered from Egyptian 
bondage % 

According to the Bible the Jews were in Egypt at least 
two hundred and fifteen years — that is to say, for about 
seven generations. The Jews and Egyptians lived to- 



Introdtiction by Colonel Ingersoll. vii 

gether — slaves and masters — for all this time. It is cer- 
tain that they talked to each other; and if they did, the 
Jews must have learned something of the language of 
the Egyptians, and the Egyptians must have known 
something of Hebrew. In this way, new words would 
have been added to the language of each people. But 
we are now assured by the best Hebrew scholars that no 
Egyptian word, or word of Egyptian origin, is found in 
Hebrew. So, it is claimed by philologists that no He- 
brew words have been found in Egyptian records. 
This being so, it is absolutely certain that the Hebrews 
were never slaves in Egypt, and that the whole story of 
the bondage and deliverance is a pure myth. 

The second reason for the sacredness of the seventh 
day has no foundation in fact. 

The truth is that the Jews got their idea of the Sab- 
bath from the Babylonians, as well as the stories of Crea- 
tion — Adam and Eve — the forbidden fruit — the expulsion 
from Eden, and the Flood, — all these things came from 
Babylon. In my judgment, the Pentateuch was written, 
or at least put into form, after the Captivity, — and many 
superstitions that they had learned from the Babylonians 
were added. The Jews were, undoubtedly, impressed 
with the grandeur and power of their conquerors — with 
their education and wealth — and adopted many of their 
myths and legends. Unless we believe in the Babylonian 
gods, we have no divine sanction for the seventh day. 
We are compelled to rely on reason and to decide the 
question without supernatural aid. 

In the New Testament no great regard is expressed 
for the seventh day. A man asked Christ what he should 
do to inherit eternal life, and Christ told him to obey the 



viii Introduction by Colonel Ingersoll. 

commandments. The man asked him, which? Christ 
told him the ones he must obey, but said not a word 
about keeping the Sabbath. On several occasions Christ 
scandalized the pious Jews by violating the sacred day. 

But if it can be established that the Old Testament is 
inspired, and that the seventh day was sanctified by 
Jehovah, how is it that Christians pay no regard to the 
seventh day ? By what authority has the first day of the 
week been substituted for the seventh % God did not 
rest on the first day. That is the day he began to work. 
Neither is it pretended that God delivered the Jews from 
the Egyptians on the first day — that was on the seventh, 
according to the Bible. 

When was the change made? There is no evidence, 
so far as I know, that Christ or his early disciples 
changed the day from the seventh to the first. The day 
seems to have been designated by Constantine. He 
named the first day, because that day was, and had been 
for many ages, sacred to the Sun. It was a Pagan 
holy-day, and for that reason was adopted by the 
Christians. 

As a matter of fact, Christianity borrowed everything 
it has. It borrowed the biography of Christ — all its 
dogmas and all its ceremonies and symbols. There is 
nothing original in " our religion." 

Nothing can be more idiotic than the belief that Sun- 
day is sacred, and that labor is profane. Nothing can 
be more idiotic than the belief that pleasure is sinful. 

"Work is worship, labor is prayer, and happiness is the 
answer. Looking sad, feeling mournful, folding the 
hands of idleness, sitting in the shadow, thinking about 
death, listening to orthodox sermons — to descriptions of 



Introduction by Colonel Ingersoll. ix 

the eternal prison — is an insane way of spending one- 
seventh of our lives. Every sensible man should do 
what he can to destroy the Sunday-superstition — to take 
the " sacred " day from the myth called God and give it 
back to the people. 

All Christians who are trying to get God and his 
oldest son into the Constitution — who are trying to keep 
the Sabbath sacred by law, trying to prevent the run- 
ning of boats and cars on Sunday, trying to abolish 
bloomers and bicycles, picnics and excursions — all these 
Christians are the enemies of liberty. They are ego- 
tistical and ignorant, superstitious and malignant, nar- 
row, shriveled, tyranical, impudent, and pious. They 
have no conception of human rights. They regard the 
universe as an absolute monarchy. God, their God, is 
the King. They are his agents and the people are 
slaves. These agents are overbearing, meddlesome, 
meek, and malicious. They are never as happy as when 
writing rules and making laws for their neighbors. To 
see a man in jail for having worked on Sunday fills them 
with holy joy. They think that their God has been vin- 
dicated and the devil rebuked. If they could close the 
mouths of unbelievers, burn the books of real philoso- 
phers, and stop the intellectual progress of mankind 
their faces would become as much too short as they are 
now too long. 

Death to superstition ! 

Down with bigotry ! 

R. G. INGERSOLL. 



FOE A STRICTER SUNDAY. 

On December 9, 1895, the Churchman's League of 
Washington, D. C, consisting of orthodox ministers, 
met in Willard Hall to formulate legislation for a stricter 
religious observance of Sunday in the District of Co- 
lumbia ; Rev. Dr. Elliott, Episcopalian, presided, and 
speeches in favor of the movement were made by Rev. 
W. H. Brooks, Dr. Mackay-Smith, Mr. Charles Lyman, 
Rev. Dr. Domer, Judge Kimball, Rev. Dr. RadclifF, Rev. 
W. P. Young, and Rev. G. F. Williams. A committee 
was appointed to draft a bill punishing Sabbath-break- 
ing, and to urge its passage by Congress. 



(From the Washington Post, Jan. 27, 1896.) 

AGAINST A STRICTER SUNDAY. 

The Washington Secular League, at its assembly 
room, yesterday afternoon, passed the following reso- 
lution, introduced by Mr. D. Webster Groh : 

Whereas Hon. Elijah A. Morse has introduced, as 
proposed legislation for the District of Columbia, a bill 
avowedly " to protect the first day of the week ; " and 

Whereas days, unlike persons and property, can neither 
be kidnapped, starved, injured, robbed, oppressed, nor 
demolished, and have neither health, wealth, nor morals 
to protect ; and 

Whereas "the Lord's day, set apart by general con- 
sent in accordance with Divine appointment as a day of 
rest and worship, " if there be any such day so set apart, 
must necessarily be a religious day ; and 

Whereas the toiling masses of the United States feel 



that more holidays rather than holy days would promote 
the general welfare ; and 

Whereas the constitutional injunction, " Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of re- 
ligion," strictly forbids legislation enjoining religious 
observances : therefore be it 

Resolved, That the Secular League of Washington, 
and the subscribers hereto, most solemnly protest 
against the passage of House bill No. 167 as violative of 
the fundamental law, destructive of personal liberty, sub- 
versive of the rights of the people, and tending to trans- 
form our republic into a theocracy. 

[While this discussion of Sunday observance was pro- 
ceeding, i. e., on March 11, 1896, a public hearing was 
had before the Judiciary Committee of thirteen mem- 
bers of the House of Representatives (Hon. Mr. Ray, of 
New York, chairman) of the proposed joint resolution to 
amend the Constitution of the United States, by insert- 
ing in the first lines of the preamble the words, " ac- 
knowledging Almighty God as the source of all power 
and authority in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ 
as the ruler of nations, and His revealed will as of su- 
preme authority in civil affairs." In favor of it were heard 
Rev. H. H. George, Rev. W. H. Hubbard, Rev. W. J. 
Coleman, Rev. H. A. Vale, Rev. J. R. Cole, Rev. David 
M'Allister, and Rev. Dr. Stockton ; and against it Samuel 
P. Putnam, P. B. Woodbury, Rev. A. H. Lewis, Rev. 
Jenkin Lloyd Jones, Rev. Mr. Abraham, Gen. Wm. Bir- 
ney, and W. A. Croffut. The opponents of the amend- 
ment occupied an hour and the advocates of it two and 
a half hours. The speeches were reported verbatim and 
published in a Congressional document of forty-two 
royal octavo pages. The Judiciary Committee unani- 
mously decided against the amendment.] 



DR. SUNDERLAND REPLIES TO THE SECULAR 
LEAGUE. 

Editor Post : Referring to the resolutions of the 
Washington Secular League, printed in your issue of 
this morning, may I have a word through your columns 
with those gentlemen, not in the spirit of controversy, 
but as members of society, who wish in every way 
practicable to promote the welfare of their fellow-men ? 

Let me put a case to them. Suppose a man sincerely 
believes that God's command to " Remember the Sab- 
bath day to keep it holy " is binding on himself and on 
society, and that if the command is obeyed a great good 
will result to the community, should he not desire to 
see that good accomplished and avail himself of every 
lawful means to secure its accomplishment ! And if the 
u Christian Sabbath " can be protected in any measure 
by a law of Congress, what is the objection to it? Let 
us see. 

1. It is described as " the first day of the week " and 
also as " Sunday." These are the terms in common use 
to distinguish it from the Saturday or Jewish Sabbath, 
but the Scripture title is " the Sabbath," which signifies 
rest or rest-day — and is now always the seventh day of 
the week and not the first day. # 

2. Time is an abstraction with nothing about it to 
protect. Why, then, are Independence, Labor, and 
other days legalized by law ? 

3. The Lord's day must necessarily be a religious day, 
therefore legislation concerning it is unconstitutional. 



Answer — The Constitution explicitly recognizes it under 
the term " Sunday," as a dies non, or a day not to be 
reckoned among the secular days of the week when 
ordinary business may be performed. Can legislation 
for that which the Constitution explicitly recognizes be 
regarded unconstitutional ? 

4. The toiling masses need more holidays and less holy 
days. Answer — So they thought in the French Revo- 
lution, and they cut off three-tenths of the yearly Sab- 
baths. But it did not last long. They found that God 
is wiser than man. The Sabbath is the only national 
holy day, while there are already several holidays, and 
there is a difference of opinion about what the toiling 
masses need — not what they may chance to want, but 
what they must have for their highest good. 

5. The Constitution strictly forbids legislation enjoin- 
ing religious observances. This is denied. It is a false 
construction of the language of the Constitution, which 
only forbids establishing by law " a union of church and 
state " — taking that phrase in its historic sense — nor did 
the authors of the Constitution so regard it, as is seen 
from all the state papers and legislation of that period. 
The position now taken by the Secular League is a clear 
departure from the construction of the fathers of the 
republic, and from their practice under the provisions 
of the Constitution. 

6. To denounce proper legislation for the protection 
of the Sabbath " as violative of the fundamental law, 
destructive of personal liberty, subversive of the rights 
of the people, and tending to transform our republic 
into a theocracy " is virtually to condemn the opinion 
and work of the great men who formulated and founded 



our republican government and institutions. They held 
to no such doctrine. It is the afterthought of those 
who reject Christianity as the basis of our national 
stability and prosperity. It is an abandonment of all 
religious conviction and all sense of responsibility to the 
God of nations. 

If our people are ready for this they will, of course, 
succeed in transferring the character of our government 
and laws from a religious to an irreligious basis, and 
then history will repeat itself, adding another instance 
to the warnings of the past. 

7. " The District needs no special laws for any special 

days." Let us, then, abolish the legislation for the 

existing holidays and take the nation into atheism simon 

pure, but, as Bobby Burns has admonished us, 

An atheist's laugh's a poor exchange 
For Deity offended. 

B. SUNDEBLAND. 



DB. CBOFFUT BEPLIES TO DB. SUNDEBLAND. 

Editok Post : As a member of the Secular League I 
voted for the resolutions of remonstrance against the 
establishment of a Puritan Sunday in Washington, and 
am interested in the protest against those resolutions 
uttered by my friend, Dr. Byron Sunderland, in your 
paper. In the manifestation of your usual liberality and 
impartiality, give me a little space for a reply : 

1. The Doctor thinks everybody ought to be com- 
pelled to " keep " Sunday — that is, to abstain from work 
and play on the first day of the week — because the 



6 

Bible says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it 
holy." And then he goes on to explain that " the Sab- 
bath " is not Sunday at all ! He says that Sunday is 
"the first day of the week," and that "the Sabbath 
* * * is now always the seventh day of the week and 
not the first day." In other words, the Doctor thinks 
that man ought to keep holy the first day of each week, 
because he has been solemnly commanded to keep holy 
the seventh day of each week. And then, forgetting the 
distinction which he has just carefully made, he imme- 
diately goes on to say that "the Sabbath is the only 
national holy day." Is there any respectful way to deal 
with such utter carelessness in the use of language ? 

2. Who authorized the substitution of Sunday for 
Saturday? The Bible did not. Who did? Nobody 
knows. All that we know is that Constantine, the bloody- 
handed propagandist of Christianity, having three months 
before deliberately murdered his sister and his son, pre- 
sided over the great Christian Council of Nice, and there 
promulgated the edict making holy " the Venerable day 
of the Sun." The next important event in the history of 
Sunday is that Henry VIII, after divorcing two of his 
wives and killing two more, declared himself the head of 
the Protestant Church, and put forth a royal command 
that the English race should always thereafter keep 
Sunday as a holy day. 

3. The holy day has had a hard gauntlet to run. 
Jesus was denounced as a Sabbath-breaker. Paul re- 
fused to insist on the Sabbath being kept. Justin Mar- 
tyr said, "There is no need of a Sabbath since Jesus 
Christ." The most distinguished founders of the Chris- 
tian Church — Ireneus, Clement, Origen, Tertullian — 



opposed its observance. Luther repudiated it as a holy 
day. William Penn said : " To call any day of the week a 
Christian Sabbath is not Christian, but Jewish. Give 
me one scripture for it, and I will give you two against 
it." When John Knox visited Calvin on Sunday after- 
noon he found him with some companions rolling ten- 
pins. The observance of Sunday was opposed by John 
Milton, Baxter, Paley, Jeremy Taylor, and Archbishop 
Whately. 

Then what right has Dr. Sunderland or Congress to 
impose religious observances, either positive or negative, 
on people who favor and have ordained perfect freedom 
of thought on the subject of religion and whose Consti- 
tution explicitly commands that " Congress shall make 
no law concerning the establishment of religion " ? 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



DR. SUNDERLAND'S REJOINDER. 

Editor Post : Now as to my friend Croffut : 

1. He is a sterling joker, witty and wise, and I do 
think he might have spared me on the tenpins of Calvin, 
since we have enough to cope with in his " five points." 
Friend Croffut is a poet and a master of language in 
things he comprehends, but he is evidently not up in 
the modern literature of the Sabbath question. He re- 
gales us with some very old chestnuts that have long- 
been masticated to staleness, and which I pass over as 
irrelevant to the present issue. 

2. He plays, as many do, a logomachy on the words 
" Sunday," " Sabbath," " first day of the week," " seventh 



8 

day of the week," etc., and then soberly asks, "Is there 
any respectful way to deal with such utter carelessness 
in the use of language? " I frankly answer him, I know 
of none, remembering, all the while, that it is his " care- 
lessness" and not mine. I have read his poems with 
deep interest, and I know he would not deliberately 
hurt my feelings, as I certainly would not his, but he is 
evidently not aware of vital distinctions which the 
student of the Sabbath question from a Bible stand- 
point must recognize. Through this inadvertence he 
represents me as saying that " Sunday is the first day 
of the week and that the Sabbath is now always the 
seventh day of the week and not the first day, and that it is 
the only national holy day." Of course, he garbles what 
I did say, leaving out the explanatory clauses of my 
statement, and so makes a caricature. We make a dis- 
tinction between the Jewish week and the Christian 
week, and when I said " the Sabbath is now always the 
seventh day of the week and not the first day," I had 
reference to the Christian week and not the Jewish. 

3. My friend Croffut asks, " what right we have to im- 
pose religious observances, either positive or negative, 
on people who favor and have obtained perfect freedom 
of thought on the subject of religion." I answer, the 
same right that these same people exercised when they 
formulated their Sabbath and Sunday laws — the right of 
a majority to establish a rest day for man and beast by 
law. Nor did they construe this as an imposition of 
religious observance on anybody. I answer again, the 
right which the Government had to suppress polygamy 
in Mormondom — the right which State and municipal 
authorities have to close the saloons on Sunday — mean- 



ing by that the Christian Sabbath. Perfect freedom of 
religious thought is one thing ; protecting a day of rest 
and prayer is quite another. 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



CROFFUT KEPLIES TO SUNDERLAND. 

Editor Post : In his reply to some remarks of mine 
which the jPost kindly published, my eloquent friend, 
Rev. Dr. Sunderland, has fully marshaled the reasons 
which move him to favor a law to compel everybody to 
keep, as a day of rest and worship Sunday, which he 
courageously calls "the seventh day of the Christian 
week." I cannot better show proper appreciation of the 
kindly things which he says of me, and of the strength 
of the reasons which he adduces to support his position, 
than by resting my plea for keeping Sunday as a secular 
holiday on the argument which he makes against it. 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



OTHERS TAKE A HAND. 

At this date, February 5, several others came into the 
discussion : on the side of less liberty, Rev. Dr. Elliott, 
Rev. Mr. Crafts, and Dr. Butler ; and against greater 
restriction, Mr. J. H. West, Mr. D. Webster Groh, Mr. 
W. E. H. Smart, Mr. F. B. Woodbury, Mr. Samuel P. 
Putnam, President of the American Secular Union, and 
Major Maurice Pechin, President of the Secular League. 
From Mr. West's letter may be quoted the following 
vigorous paragraph : 



10 

" Dr. Sunderland says that he still has the horrors of 
the French Revolution on his mind. That is really too 
bad ; it is scarcely to be expected that, with such a night- 
mare disturbing him, he can ever gain courage to look 
at the horrors that produced that revolution, chief 
among which was that infamous union of church and 
state for which he seems to be contending. Who sows 
the wind shall reap the whirlwind. 

" It was once the fashion in England and in Europe 
generally, among monarchists and clergymen, to point to 
the French Revolution as a ' warning ' against republi- 
canism in politics and rationalism in religion, but this 
old scarecrow has been generally kept in the cellar since 
truer histories of that revolt against despotism were 
written. That revolution was, indeed, a warning that 
despotic kingly and clerical rule cannot produce a nation 
fit for republicanism or rationalism. The most fanatical 
leaders of that revolt (I do not question their virtue, 
character, or sincerity) were educated by clergymen. 
Marat was of a Calvinist family, and it was Robespierre, 
trained by priests, who exclaimed : ' If God did not 
exist, we should have to invent him.' It was Robespierre, 
too, who presided at the Fete de l'Etre Supreme, in 
1794, when, in the name of the republic, the existence 
of -a God was proclaimed. If this is the awful warning 
to which the Doctor alludes, let him pass it along to 
those of his clerical brethren who, in this country, are 
seeking to imitate Robespierre." 



(Monday, February 15.) 

SUNDAY LAWS NOW IN FORCE. 

Editor Post : The JPost has been very liberal to give 
so much of its valuable space to a consideration of the 
Sunday question, and I would not re-enter the discus- 



11 

sion except with the hope of ending it, or, at any rate, 
of shortening it. The parties to the discussion seem to 
me to misunderstand each other — the cause of many 
controversies. The Rev. Dr. Sunderland seems to think 
that the Secular League wants to abolish all Sunday ob- 
servance, and some of his critics appear to imagine that 
he wishes to persecute them. Both parties are certainly 
mistaken. The gentle-minded pastor of the First 
Church would not wantonly violate anbody's rights, and 
the Secular League clings to Sunday for rest and reno- 
vation quite as tenaciously as he. 

What is the cause of the difference, then ? 

Obviously all this bother has been created by an at- 
tempt to induce Congress to pass a bill to define and 
regulate the Sunday conduct of the people of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, that bill reading as following : 

A bill to protect the first day of the week, commonly called Sun- 
day, as a day of rest and worship in the District of Columbia. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represent- 
atives of the United States of America in Congress as- 
sembled, That on the first day of the week, known as the 
Lord's Day, set apart by general consent in accordance 
with divine appointment as a day of rest and worship, it 
shall be unlawful to perform any labor, except works of 
necessity and mercy and work by those who religiously 
observe Saturday, if performed in such a way as not to 
involve or disturb others ; also to open places of busi- 
ness or traffic, except in the case of drug stores for the 
dispensing of medicines ; also to make contracts or 
transact other commercial business ; also to engage in 
noisy amusements or amusements for gain, or entertain- 
ments for which admittance fees are charged ; also to 
perform any court service, except in connection with ar- 
rests of criminals and service of process to prevent 
fraud. 



12 

Sec. 2. That the penalty for violating any provision of 
this act shall be a fine of not less than ten dollars for 
the first offense ; for second or subsequent offenses, a 
fine not exceeding fifty dollars and imprisonment for 
not less than ten nor more than thirty days, and one 
year's forfeiture of license, if any is held by the offender 
or his employer. 

Sec. 3. That this act shall take effect upon its passage. 



To this it has been objected (reasonably, it seems to 
me) that — ' 

1. The first day of the week is not (generally) 
" known as the Lord's day." It is known as Sunday. 
In the ten thousand calendars and almanacs printed this 
year, many of them ecclesiastical, it is probably not 
" known as the Lord's day " on a single one. Sunday 
is its legal name. Sunday is its popular name. Dr. 
Sunderland himself calls it " Sunday " a thousand times 
where he calls it " the Lord's day " once. 

2. It is not and never was set apart " by divine ap- 
pointment." The Bible thus set apart Saturday as a 
day of rest ; but Sunday was especially dedicated to 
labor, for it seems to have been the day when God first 
began to work, and on that single day He created the 
heavens and the earth. 

3. It is far from expedient to commit to police courts 
the question what are " works of necessity and mercy," 
and who "religiously" observe Saturday. Does Dr. 
Sunderland believe it would promote justice? The men 
who work hardest on Sunday are the ministers ; yet not 
only is their work to be permitted and encouraged, but 
the labor of livery-stable keepers, car conductors, brake 
men, carriage drivers, and engine stokers in the power- 



13 

houses is to be called " a work of necessity," because 
they carry people to church. There is in this bill no 
definition of "necessity" or " mercy," and the police jus- 
tice would be left to define both. In other words, he 
would have to be a legislator, as well as judge, and make 
the law which he would be called on to enforce. What 
is " necessity " ! Is the Sunday-morning milkman a 
necessity 1 Is the Sunday-morning newsboy a necessity ? 
Are cooling drinks a necessity — soda, at the drug stores, 
for instance? Are ice-cream restaurants a necessity? 
Is it necessary for a man to drive his family or his neigh- 
bors into the suburbs on Sunday afternoons, as most 
men who can afford it now do I Are steam railroads a 
necessity ? Are telegraphs a necessity ? Is it necessary 
to take a Sunday spin on the bicycle 1 Does not Dr. Sun- 
derland see that so vague a law would necessarily be a 
foolish and iniquitous law — that it would assume as 
many forms as there are police justices, or perhaps police- 
men? 

4. The end of section 2 is a vicious provision, that any 
employer — a livery-stable keeper, for instance — shall 
forfeit his valuable license if one of his men, during his 
absence (at church, maybe) lets a buggy for a drive into 
the country. This is certainly monstrous. 

But suppose Dr. Sunderland really thinks that this 
bill is wisely drawn, and that such a law is needed ? My 
sufficient reply is that such a law is already on our stat- 
ute books, and this should put an end to the discussion. 
A law much severer than this, yet not too severe to be 
enforced, exists at this moment unrepealed among the 
laws which govern the District of Columbia, and its pur- 
pose is " to protect the Sabbath." That law is not too 



14 

familiar, perhaps, for you to quote it here once more. 
It is to be found in the laws of the province of Mary- 
land, compiled by Kilty, passed during the September 
session of the Assembly, 1723, chapter xvi of those acts. 
When the District was organized these laws were adopted 
to thenceforward govern the people of Washington until 
repealed by Congress. Here is the section of chapter 
xvi : 

And be it enacted that no person whatsoever shall 
work or do any bodily labor on the Lord's day, com- 
monly called Sunday, and that no person, having chil- 
dren, servants, or slaves shall command or wittingly or 
willingly suffer any of them to do any manner of work 
or labor on the Lord's day (works of necessity and 
charity always excepted), nor shall suffer or permit any 
children, servants, or slaves to profane the Lord's day 
by gaming, fishing, fowling, hunting, or unlawful pas- 
times or recreations ; and that every person transgress- 
ing this act, and being thereof convicted by the oath of 
one sufficient witness or confession of the party before a 
single magistrate, shall forfeit two hundred pounds of 
tobacco, to be levied and applied as aforesaid. 

This law, I repeat, is a part of the statutes of Mary- 
land which were vitalized and made a part of our laws 
when the District of Columbia was organized, and it can 
be enforced now, by any judge wishing to enforce it, as 
well as it could ever be. I beg to call Dr. Sunderland's 
attention to the fact that 200 pounds of tobacco are 
worth much more than $10, and that this superior pen- 
alty should be more likely to exact obedience. 

It is also worth while to notice that, while the pro- 
posed new law says that Sunday is " known as the Lord's 
day," this old law, still in force, says that the Lord's day 



15 

is " commonly called Sunday." Brother Sunderland will 
doubtless insist that this old law is obsolete. I admit 
that it has not been enforced much lately, but that is 
distinctly the fault of those who insist that just such 
a law is sadly needed. Why has it fallen into disuse if it 
is really required for the peace of the community? It 
has, I believe, never been declared not in force, and it is 
a part of a code of laws, some of which, enacted by the 
same Assembly the same year, are enforced every week in 
Washington. While this stringent law is on our statute 
books unrepealed, I do not expect any sober-minded 
man to insist upon the passage of another law whose 
provisions are included within it. Dr. Sunderland, I am 
sure, will not enlist in any such puerile effort. 

This old chapter xvi of* the statutes has still further 
value, for it contains another section making it quite 
unnecessary to put God and Jesus Christ into the Con- 
stitution. I quote the explicit provision from Kilty : 

Be it enacted by the right honorable, the Lord Proprietor, by and 
with the advice and consent of his lordship's Governor, and 
the upper and lower Houses of Assembly, and the authority 
of the same : 

That if any person shall hereafter, within this province, 
wittingly, maliciously, and advisedly, by writing or 
speaking, blaspheme or curse God, or deny our Saviour, 
Jesus Christ, to be the Son of God, or shall deny the 
Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or the 
Godhead of any of the Three Persons, or the unity of 
the Godhead, or shall utter any profane words concern- 
ing the Holy Trinity, or any of the Persons thereof, and 
shall be thereof convict by verdict or confession, shall 
for the first offense be bored through the tongue and 
fined twenty pounds sterling to the Lord Proprietor, to 
be applied to the use of the County where the offense 



16 

shall be committed, to be levied on the offender's body, 
goods, and chattels, lands or tenements, and in case the 
said fine cannot be levied, the offender to suffer six 
months' imprisonment without bail or mainprise ; and 
that for the second offense, the offender being thereof 
convict as aforesaid, shall be stigmatized by burning on 
the forehead with the letter B, and fined forty pounds 
sterling to the Lord Proprietor, to be applied and levied 
as aforesaid, and in case the same cannot be levied, the 
offender shall suffer twelve months' imprisonment, with- 
out bail or mainprise ; and that for the third offense, 
the offender being convict, as aforesaid, shall suffer 
death without benefit of the clergy. 

This old law is still unrepealed, still operative, so far 
as I know — that is, having the power of enforcement. 
It seems to have gone asleep of late years, encouraged 
thereto by the somnolence of the church, and is suffer- 
ing from atrophy, like the tail of a rabbit. But a proper 
show of zeal would renew its usefulness. If it were to 
be enforced, obviously all of our estimable friends of 
the Unitarian Church would be going about with holes 
bored through their tongues and the letter " B " branded 
on their foreheads, if, indeed, they had not committed 
three times the doleful offense for which John Calvin 
and his friends burned Servetus and, in committing it, 
joined the great army of martyrs. 

Now, Dr. Sunderland is sincere and candid, and he 
speaks without reserve ; will he kindly tell us what he 
wants of another law, which is in spirit and purpose 
exactly like a law already among the statutes by which 
we are governed, and as accessible to the public courts 
as the law against drunkenness and fast driving, if there 
is anybody who wants to enforce it ? 

W. A. CBOFFUT. 



17 

( Wednesday, February 24.) 

DE. SUNDERLAND EXAMINES THE CONCLU- 
SIONS OF DR. CROFFUT. 

Editor Post : I welcome the article of Dr. Croffut in 
your issue of recent date, stamped as it is with its evi- 
dent candor and sincerity. First of all, I wish him to 
know that I Jiad never seen the bill now before Congress, 
and knew nothing of its provisions, till I read them as 
embodied in his article. 

He has very fairly stated his objections to the bill be- 
coming a law, as follows : 

1. A wrong designation of the day. 

2. It was never set apart by divine appointment. 

3. The ambiguity of the qualifying phrase, " work of 
necessity and mercy," and of the word "religiously." 

4. The severity of the penalty. 

5. Sufficient law already exists. 

In his comments on the bill Dr. Croffut, by his frequent 
reference to me, would seem to be under the impression 
that I may be the father of the bill, or at least have 
known the manner of its preparation and presentation in 
Congress. I can assure him I know nothing of the cir- 
cumstances, or who drew the bill, or who presented it 
in Congress, or what provisions it contained. The reso- 
lutions of the Secular League were the first notice of it 
that I saw, and I have all along been discussing the sub- 
ject on general principles, and not at all with reference 
to this particular bill. So I am as free to criticise it as 
Dr. Croffut himself. 

1. I agree with him in his first objection, but differ 



18 

probably as to the proper designation of the day. I 
would have the title read : 

A bill to protect the Sabbath, commonly called Sunday, as a day 
of rest and worship in the District of Columbia. 
Be it enacted, &c, That on the Sabbath, or Lord's day, com- 
monly oalled Sunday, divinely designated as a day of rest and 
worship, &c. 

2. I differ with him as to the Bible authority of the 
day. He says, " it never was set apart by divine appoint- 
ment." I would change this phraseology, and say it 
was divinely designated as the Sabbath — and that is, for 
all practical purposes, equivalent to affirming its divine 
appointment. Dr. Croffut holds, if I understand him, 
that there is no Bible authority for treating the day as 
a Sabbath. I hold just the opposite view — that there is 
Bible authority for so treating it. On this point I doubt 
not we differ honestly, but still we differ, and differ 
widely. 

He says, " the Bible thus set apart Saturday as a day 
of rest, but Sunday was especially dedicated to labor, 
for it seems to have been the day when God first began 
to work, and on that single day He created the heavens 
and the earth." Here is the whole matter in a nutshell. 
This is the^o^s asinorum of all an ti- Sabbatarianism. It 
is the merest assumption — there is not a vestige of proof 
in the whole Bible that the creation week and the Jewish 
week are identical. I challenge any one to show from 
the Scriptures that the Sabbath mentioned in Ex. xvi. 
23 is the calendar successor of that mentioned in Gen. 
ii. 2, 3. Where in the Bible is it said that God set apart 
Saturday as a day of rest ? Or where in the Bible is it 
said that God began his work on Sunday ! Challenges 



19 

to produce Bible texts for this or that are easy. Let 
the Secularists and Second Adventists produce a text 
from the Bible identifying the Jewish with the creation 
week. 

Resort is had to Ex. xx. 8-11 for the sake of identi- 
fication, but there is not a syllable of it which intimates 
or implies that the Sabbath of Ex. xvi. 23 is the calendar 
successor of that in Gen. ii. 2-3. It is simply exempli 
gratia, signifying that as God's week was seven days, so 
ours must be — that as He worked six days, so must we — 
that as He rested the seventh day of His week, so must 
we rest the seventh day of our week — that as He sancti- 
fied the seventh day of His week, so we must sanctify 
the seventh day of our week. But not a word is said 
nor a hint given as to the calendar succession — and no 
man can prove it from the Bible. Hence it is mere 
assumption to say God began His work on Sunday, and 
Saturday was set apart as a Sabbath. It may have been 
so, or it may not, and it is no consequence either way. 
And that is the reason for the silence of the Bible in 
reference to it. All that we find in the Bible on this 
subject shows the permanence of the Sabbatic institution 
as designed for all dispensations and generations ; but 
there is no calendar succession of weeks from the creation 
down to Christ's advent shown anywhere in the Scrip- 
tures. Hence there is no proof that the creation Sab- 
bath, the Jewish Sabbath, and the Christian Sabbath 
are identical. 

3. The ambiguity and vagueness of the qualifying 
terms, " religious," and " necessity," and " mercy." Dr. 
Croffut takes exception here and specifies a great variety 
of personal acts, each of which must be judged upon its 



20 

own premises. He deems it inexpedient to commit this 
judgment to police courts. But it must rest somewhere, 
and if there is not sufficient safeguard for the protection 
of the accused, I would add the privilege of jury and the 
right of appeal. This is all that can be done for any 
individual rights in any case under our system of gov- 
ernment. 

Besides, if I understand him, Dr. Croffut assents to 
the existing law, or, at least, does not call for its repeal, 
and the existing law retains the clause objected to, in 
these words : " works of necessity and charity always 
excepted." If he assents to this in the old law, why 
should he object to it in the new "? 

Again, he claims that in the pending bill " there is 
no definition of the phrase ' necessity or mercy,' that the 
magistrate would be left to define both ; this would 
make him both legislator and judge; compel him to 
make as well as administer the law." If this is sound 
reasoning, it is just as applicable to the existing law, 
which I understand Dr. Croffut to accept. Why make 
" fish of one and fowl of the other " ? 

4. Dr. Croffut objects to the severity of the penalty, 
and I agree with him. I think the suspension of license 
should be left to the discretion of the court, and not 
made mandatory. 

5. Dr. Croffut objects to the pending bill on the 
ground that a severer law already exists. I do not 
see why, from his standpoint, he should be content with 
a severer law when it is proposed to put in its place a 
milder one. It is true the 200 pounds of tobacco is a 
strong inducement for retaining the old law, but as it is 
in some other respects somewhat out of date, " a back 



21 

number, as it were," not quite up to our changed condi- 
tions and appliances of civilization, I would be willing 
to forego the tobacco for the sake of a milder law, more 
clearly suited to the demands of the age and the various 
interests of our complex society. I think this old law 
should be repealed and a new law be substituted for it. 

6. Dr. Croffut has unearthed an old colonial law of 
Maryland promulgated under the auspices of the papal 
church and bearing strong features of resemblance to 
the acts of the Inquisition of the fifteenth and sixteenth 
centuries, which forms the text of a brief sermon end- 
ing with the buring of Servetus by Calvin and his friends. 
It is sufficient here to say that, by the papal authorities 
of Vienna, Servetus had already been condemned to 
suffer death by fire. Escaping doom at Vienna by the 
aid of friends, he confronted Calvin at Geneva, and in 
the course of the proceedings he demanded that Calvin 
should be imprisoned and tried, the prosecution to con- 
tinue until he or Calvin should be sentenced to suffer 
death or some other punishment. It was life for life 
between the two. In the end Servetus was condemned 
and burned. With Calvin it was self-preservation, and 
not a voice in Europe was raised against him for his 
part in the tragedy till more than half a century after- 
ward. I call my friend's attention to this little bit of 
history. It was the spirit of those times fostered by 
the policy of Rome. We now live in a Bible age and 
note distinctions better fitted to our needs. 

But of this old Maryland law for the punishment of 
heretics I have but one opinion. It surely does not now T 
reflect the Christian sentiment of the world, and what- 
ever may have been its uses in times past, it is no longer 



22 

fit to stand in American legislation. My friend Croffut 
asks me if I want another law in addition to those already 
existing, and I frankly tell him yes ; not only for the 
reasons already given, but for the additional reason that 
I wish the two laws he has recited wiped out from the 
statute books, as they are already obsolete sub silentio, 
by " the silent practice of the courts." 

Permit me to add that I have not been made aware of 
any effort among the churches of Washington to give 
the slightest support to the movement in Congress ; and 
the only article I have seen in favor of a Sunday law was 
in The Post recently by Mr. Fitzgerald, a very sensible 
article, and he a member of an alien church. If our 
moral and Christian people take no more interest in the 
matter than they are evincing now, it will not be sur- 
prising if the opponents of Sabbath legislation in Con- 
gress, who are very much alive on the subject, do not 
carry the day and succeed in preventing any Congres- 
sional action. I have often been astonished at the appar- 
ent apathy of our ministers and churches whenever any 
question of this kind is before the public. 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



A CHALLENGE FROM DR. SUNDERLAND. 

By this time the discussion had assumed formidable 
proportions. Some scores of letters on both sides of 
the question were banked up on the table of the man- 
aging editor of The Post, Mr. Scott C. Bone, and for 
them he could find no room. To escape from the di- 
lemma and at the same time to give adequate hearing 



23 

on a question that excited lively interest, he permitted 
a continuance of the discussion under conditions out- 
lined in the editorial columns of The Post as follows : 

{From the Washington Daily Post, Feb. 19, 1896.) 

The Post yesterday gave space to another communi- 
cation on " The Sunday Question," from Rev. Byron 
Sunderland, D. D., of the First Presbyterian Church, in 
reply to the article from the pen of Dr. W. A. Croffut, 
printed some days ago. 

Dr. Sunderland has sent to The Post the following- 
challenge : 

"I should like an opportunity to reply to all the articles 
which my communications have brought out, but cannot 
ask for the space required to do so, as you have already 
extended to me large courtesy. If, however, you will 
admit the discussion to your columns, with the risk of 
a protracted siege, I have this proposal to make : I will 
meet any one of the anti-Sabbatarians, who desires to 
champion their cause in a discussion of the Sunday ques- 
tion, to his heart's content. But it must be on condition 
that there is but one of their number, and not half a 
dozen, to reply to me, as has been the case heretofore. 

"Washington, Feb. 22. "B. SUNDERLAND. ' 

The Post will give space to the discussion on the lines 
indicated by Dr. Sunderland. Dr. W. A. Croffut, the well- 
known writer, by special request, has agreed to take up 
the discussion on behalf of the Secular League. A con- 
dition of the discussion, in addition to the one named by 
Dr. Sunderland, is that each communication hereafter 
shall be limited to 700 words. The communications will 
appear in the issues of The Post of Monday, Wednesday, 
and Saturday, and as the discussion is now reopened, 
Dr. Croffut will next be heard from. The discussion will 
be confined to Dr. Sunderland and Dr. Croffut for the 
present. 



24 

{Wednesday, February 26.) 

MRS. CROFFUT EXPRESSES ANXIETY. 

Editok Post : The challenge given by Dr. Sunderland 
in this morning's issue of The Post to a reopening of 
the discussion of the Sunday law question, and its ac- 
ceptance by Dr. Croffut, gives rise to serious apprehen- 
sion in the minds of the friends of both, that the terms 
of exceeding amity and mutual respect which both the 
disputants express and truly feel for each other may 
suffer loss, as in the famous dispute upon a doctrinal 
point of church government described, in the novel of 
" Woodstock,'' by the masterly hand of Scott. Notwith- 
standing that the Rev. Nehemiah Holdenough and 
worthy Dr. Rochecliffe had recently revived a lifelong- 
friendship, begun in early youth, and had reminisced with 
affection and great good will, no sooner had they entered 
the distressing field of controversy, in which both parties 
invariably claim victory, and refuse to acknowledge 
defeat, than they both became excited, and from " Nay, 
my dear brother," and " There I must needs differ," and' 
" On this point I crave leave to think," the " flood-gates 
were opened and they showered on each other Greek 
and Hebrew texts, while their eyes kindled, their cheeks 
glowed, their hands became clenched," &c, and when 
finally separated by the interference of friends and 
forced to adjourn their dispute, " removed at the same 
time to a distance, and regarded each other with looks 
in which old friendship appeared to have totally given 
way to mutual animosity," longing each to renew a con- 
test of which those who at first exhibited most interest 



25 

were at length aweary. Indeed, only the sentence of 
immediate execution was able to effect a reconciliation 
between these jDolernica] divines. Is not this one of the 
lessons which it is the privilege of genius to convey ? 

MBS. W. A. CROFFUT. 



I. 
DR. CROFFUT SALUTES DR. SUNDERLAND. 

Editor Post : I thank you for the public spirit which 
moves you to give very valuable space to a discussion of 
fundamental questions. 

I congratulate Dr. Byron Sunderland on the enlighten- 
ment which induces him to quit the pulpit breastworks 
and speak with a chance of being answered. For sixty 
generations the church has put forth its creeds dogmat- 
ically, and the man or woman venturing to deny them 
has been denounced as a malefactor. Every clergyman 
has fancied he was having a dialogue, when he was 
merely enjoying a monologue, and he has entirely for- 
gotten the fact that it takes at least two persons to carry 
on a conversation. The result has been an obvious en- 
ervation of the pulpit ; and if Dr. Sunderland has not 
suffered from a method whose tendency is to emasculate 
the virility and hamstring the reason, it is because he 
lias often had to contend in the face of opposition for 
what he believed to be just, and therefore has the courage 
to face the intelligent, impartial, and critical audience of 
a great newspaper. 

1. Dr. Sunderland says that he is not the author or 
suggester of the bill " to protect the Lord's day " as a 



26 

day of worship in the District of Columbia. I congratu- 
late him. But he immediately proceeds to defend all 
that seems most pernicious in the bill — that is, its viola- 
tion of the religious liberty of the individual. 

2. Dr. Sunderland says the Secular League is irrelig- 
ious, and intimates that therefore its members have no 
" religious rights." I remind the Doctor that the phrase 
" religious rights " always includes irreligious rights ; 
that it means not rights in religion, but rights concern- 
ing religion. 

3. Dr. Sunderland says Sunday "was divinely desig- 
nated as the Sabbath," and " there is Bible authority for 
so treating it." Where ? Will he kindly quote chapter 
and verse ? He is now before an audience which holds 
every man's ipse dixit suspended, and demands proof. 
I know of no Bible authority for it. I think there is no 
Bible authority for it, and wait for a reply. If the Doc- 
tor will turn to SchafT's Religious Encyclopedia on his 
book shelf he will read of Sunday : " No regulations for 
its observance are laid down in the New Testament, nor, 
indeed, is its observance even enjoined." 

4. In my last I said that the Bible commanded rest 
on Saturday, " but Sunday was especially dedicated to 
labor, for it seems to have been the day when God first 
began to work, and on that single day He created the 
heavens and the earth." Dr. Sunderland comments, 
" Here is the whole matter in a nutshell. This is the 
pons asinorum of all anti-Sabbatarianism. It is the 
merest assumption." Since remarking that Sunday was 
dedicated by the Bible to labor, I find in the "Apology 
for the Christians," by Justin Martyr, beheaded at Rome 
165 A. D., the following: "The Christians regularly as- 



27 

sembled on Sunday, because it is the first day in which 
God changed darkness and matter and made the world." 

But I care little about the origin of Sunday or of Sab- 
bath. It is desirable that man should rest one day in 
seven — oftener, if he can — and the fact that the Bible 
does not anywhere designate Sunday as a holy day is 
not my chief contention. I refer it to the Jews and 
Second Adventists. Dr. Sunderland may ignore every 
point in the above four subdivisions if he will pay strict 
attention to the following : 

5. In a government like ours, founded on civil rights 
and not on religious rites — on man's duty to his fellow 
and not on his relations to God — the state has no busi- 
ness to appoint a day of worship for any man, or say 
whether he shall worship at all. Ours is a democracy, 
not a theocracy. In colonial times, the laws of Massa- 
chusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, South Carolina, and Vir- 
ginia compelled every person to go to church ; in 1574 
the kingdom appointed " searchers," whose business it 
was to hunt all over the parish and arrest persons who 
were " vaging abroad on the Lord's day." Three cen- 
turies have since passed. Laboring men will rest once 
a week, if they can, and " vage " if they wish to. Sun- 
day must be kept a purely civil holiday, violating the 
rights of no man. 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



II. 

DR. SUNDERLAND REPLIES. 

Editor Post : Dr. CrofTut is my brother man, and a 
very gifted man, too. I wish we could see alike in all 



28 

things. It would be very pleasant to nie, indeed. It 
is not long since he invited me to take a trip to the 
Holy Land. I should love dearly to go with him if my 
circumstances would permit. But who would have 
thought that instead of this we should at this moment 
be laying our heads together in the columns of The 
Post to try and discover the real fact of a circumstance 
which occurred at Jerusalem some nineteen centuries 
ago. 

1. His points are that, while I did not draw the bill, I 
am supporting a measure which violates the religious 
liberty of the individual. 

2. That " religious rights " means " rights concerning 
religion." 

3. He denies that there is Bible authority for keeping 
the day on which Christ rose from the dead as a Sab- 
bath, and cites Schaff as authority. Yes, I am familiar 
with Dr. Schaff. He is not infallible. 

4. He cites Justin Martyr, of the second century, 
whose opinion is no better than Dr. Croffut's or my 
own, as to the reason why the Christians kept the 
Christian Sabbath rather than the Jewish Sabbath, but 
Justin states the truth when he says they did so keep 
it. I might increase this testimony ad libitum. But 
enough for the present. It is conceded, then, that the 
first Christians kept the day we keep as the Sabbath, 
and this shows that a ehange-ef-- the day had already 
been made. So that in seeking Bible authority for it 
we need not go to Constantine and the acts of the 
fourth century. 

5. He turns this whole question over to the Second 
Adventists, and I now give him and them chapter and 



29 

verse showing that the day we keep is divinely desig- 
nated as " Sabbath," or " one of the Sabbaths," and not 
" first day of the week," as some English versions have 
it — Matthew xxviii. 1 ; Mark xvi. 2 and xvi. 9 ; Luke 
xxiv. 1 ; John xx. 1 and xx. 19 ; Acts xiii. 42 and xx. 
7, and First Corinthians xvi. 2. In all these passages 
the day is designated as a " Sabbath," or " one of the 
Sabbaths." Dr. Schaff and all the rest of them have 
first to pervert and distort the natural meaning of the 
original Greek in which the text was written, by foist- 
ing upon it an English phrase, " the first day of the 
week," and after this torture of the Scriptures, they are 
able to say that " the observance of Sunday," meaning 
by that the Christian Sabbath, " is not even enjoined.' 
What has that to do with the Sabbath, an observance of 
which " is enjoined "1 ' 

6. But I am happy to see that my good friend Dr. 
Croffut freely abandons all that part of the subject and 
clings only to the question of our rights under the 
Constitution — under this head he gives us information. 
He says, " the colonial laws of Massachusetts, Connecti- 
cut, Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia compelled 
every person to go to church." I wish he would cite 
the very language of any such law. I know the rigors 
of those times were very severe, but I would like him 
to point out to me the precise language of any such 
law. It may be so, but let us hear the documents. I 
am reminded of our limit, and will stop here. The 
views of the fathers and founders of our republic, as 
well as the question of " religious rights," will come in 
subsequent articles. 

My dear Mrs. Croffut's pointed article in The Post 



30 

this morning, calling to mind the genius of " the wizard 
of the North " in picturing the beauties of theological 
strife, is very timely. I hope we shall all profit by it. 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



III. 
DR. CROFFUT REPLIES. 

Editor Post : Dr. Sunderland speaks of Sunday as 
" the seventh day of the Christian week." Where does 
he get the authority for so designating it? In the 
Bible"? No. I have examined twelve dictionaries — 
English, French, and German ; Webster, Worcester, 
Walker, Johnson, Knowles, Perry, Smart, Bailey, Rich- 
ardson, Adelung, Bescherelle, and Spiers. All but two 
call Sunday "the first day of the week." None of them 
calls it the seventh day of any week. Dr. Sunderland 
contends that the people of Washington should keep 
Sunday as a " day of worship " because it is the veritable 
seventh day, whose observance is enjoined in the Deca- 
logue. Does a single one of his congregation regard it 
as a day of worship for that reason ? Does he know of 
another clergyman who so regards it ? If not, is it not 
necessary that he should publish a new dictionary at 
once? 

In contending that our Sunday is the veritable Satur- 
day which man is commanded in the Decalogue to "keep 
holy," Dr. Sunderland tries to be explicit. He says : "I 
now give chapter and verse showing that the day we 
keep is divinely designated as ' Sabbath,' or i one of the 
Sabbaths,' and not ' first day of the week,' as some Eng- 



31 

lish versions have it — Matthew xxviii. 1 ; Mark xvi. 2 
and xvi. 9 ; Luke xxiv. 1 ; John xx. 1 and xx. 19 ; Acts 
xiii. 42 and xx. 7, and First Corinthians xvi. 2." I re- 
fer the reader to these texts. Dr. Sunderland claims 
that these are all mistranslations, and that " the first day 
of the week" should be the "first of the Sabbath." 

In this contention my friend is very lonesome. Not 
a version of the Bible that I have ever seen supports him. 
King James's forty-seven scholars, Cranmer and Tyndale 
and their friends, and the learned Dr. Schaff and his as- 
sociates, who recently made the Revised Edition, all 
translate differently from Dr. Sunderland. I care not 
which is right, for it is not of the least importance in 
this discussion. They must settle it among themselves. 
But it does seem a case of the eleven obstinate jurymen. 

McClintock's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and 
Ecclesiastical Literature says : " The early laws of Mas- 
sachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, South Carolina, and 
Virginia compelled attendance at church." The Doctor 
is referred to the statutes. To quote them were to 
waste space. 

I am quite indifferent as to whether Jehovah changed 
His mind concerning the day on which He commanded 
His followers to worship Him. My contention is that 
ours is a civil and secular government, whose Constitu- 
tion forbids its Congress to make any laws respecting 
religion ; that legislators have no more right to embody 
in statutes the commands of God concerning worship or 
any religious rite than they have the commands of Baah 
Jupiter, Isis, or Gitche Manito — even if it was perfectly 
clear what God intended to command ; that Congress 
has no more right to prescribe the day or the duty of 



32 

" worship '' than it has to set forth the duty of baptism, 
circumcision, or fasting on Friday. In this country, man 
may pray with his face to Jerusalem, Mecca, Rome, Salt 
Lake City, or the sky; or he may pray not at all, except 
by giving a sympathetic hand to his tired and struggling 
fellow-man. Under our Constitution the theist, the 
atheist, the pantheist, and the poly theist are equal in 
their rights. 

Not only does the Constitution forbid Congress to 
make any laws respecting the establishment of religion, 
but George Washington, in signing the treaty with 
Tripoli, made it a part of the organic law that " the 
Government of the United States is not in any sense 
founded upon the Christian religion." Fanatics have 
always been reviving this question. Simon Wolf calls 
my attention to the fact that sixty-six years ago Con- 
gress acted on voluminous petitions to stop the United 
States mails on Sunday. Johnson, of Kentucky, re- 
ported against the petitions. He said : " Our Govern- 
ment is not religious. * * * The Legislature is not 
a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of 
God. * * * If a solemn act of legislation shall in 
one point define the law of God, it may, with equal pro- 
priety, proceed to define every part of divine revelation 
and enforce every religious obligation.' ' 

In Ohio, contracts made on Sunday^are valid and are 
enforced. Selah ! 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



33 

IY. 
DR. SUNDERLAND REPLIES. 

Editor Post : Galileo was most likely to be a little 
"lonesome," especially reciting "the seven penitential 
psalms " prescribed to him by his church. But he seems 
to have plenty of company with him in our day. 

Of course, when my good friend, Dr. CrofTut, took 
down his Greek Testament and read the texts I had 
cited, he naturally betook himself to a baker's dozen of 
dictionaries, all contradicting me as to the meaning of 
the Greek phrase in question. I would kindly advise 
him that I have examined a dozen dozen just such dic- 
tionaries and commentaries, including those named by 
him. Most of these dictionaries are mere repetitions of 
each other, like a flock of sheep running over a wall — 
the bell-wether starts out and the rest scamper after 
him — mostly going it blind. Now, I hope he will not 
laugh immoderately when in the most bland and child- 
like manner I venture to ask him this simple question : 
What is the testimony of a man worth whose practice 
invariably belies his opinion ? 

Per contra — Our Hexapla, embracing the six principal 
English versions, gives the versions of Tyndale (1534), 
the version of Cranmer (1539), and the Rheims version 
(1582), all of which exclude the phrase " first day of the 
week." The coterie of American and English scholars 
who lately undertook to revise the King James version 
left untouched several hundred passages, and the pas- 
sages in question among them, because they would not 
agree on a proper correction. 

The learned Lightfoot, one of the grandest scholars 



34 

of any age, has this to say : " The first day of the week 
is an ordinary Judaic phrase. They that are now so 
punctual to have these days so named and no otherwise 
mistook that for a purely evangelical phrase which is in- 
deed a phrase purely Judaical," Strype's folio ed., 2 vols., 
London, 1684, vol. 1, p. 270. Frank Passow's Greek 
Lexicon is, I believe, the highest standard authority as 
to the meaning and usage of Greek words. It was edited 
by the following eminent German scholars : Dr. Valen- 
tine Christopher, Frederick Host, Dr. Frederick Palm, 
Dr. Otto Kreussler, Prof. K. Keil, Director Ferdinand 
Peter, and Dr. G. E. Bensler. In the Leipsic edition, 
1857, vol. 3, p. 1362, under the head of "Sabbaton" the 
various uses of the word are given, and among the rest 
the signification of "week." Then these gentlemen, with 
all the learned investigation of ages before their eyes, 
testify as follows : " This signification (of week) was 
adopted without any necessity in' the singular, Mark 
xvi. 9, Luke xviii. 12 ; in the plural, Matt, xxviii. 1, Mark 
xvi. 2." 

The trouble with many of our learned writers is just 
that which seems to attend my good friend, Dr. Oroffut — 
that is, they are satisfied with a very superficial investi- 
gation — .Sicco pede. They have first erroneously re- 
tained the Jewish calendar, and then upon that theory 
they have started out to make the word " Sabbaton " mean 
"week." So one has followed another down to the present 
day. If, however, we find a man like Passow, who has 
taken pains to look thoroughly into the matter, we see 
him bringing out the truth. 

Dr. Croffut asks whether my people know of my views 
on this question. I say they ought to ; they have heard 



35 

me often enough. He wants to know likewise if any 
other clergyman in town agrees with me. I say frankly^ 
I do not know. I never asked them. But I would sug- 
gest that out of the great circle of scholastics here in 
town — clergymen, university professors, librarians, law- 
yers, editors — he might put to any one of them this 
proposition : 

If the literal, natural meaning of each word in the 
Greek phrase we are considering were retained, and if 
also the Greek grammatical construction were preserved,, 
should it not read in English, ;i One of the Sabbaths " ! 
I think it might be worth while to try this on — if Dr. 
Croffut has time to attend to it. 

I have another favor to ask of my friend. I wish he 
would communicate in some way with McClintock's 
Cyclopedia, and get from it the exact text of any colonial 
law which " compelled people to go to church." It must 
be a curiosity. I for one would like to see it. 

I am afraid my limit is reached. I hope my good 
friend will be patient. He is very swift, I know, but I 
will try to follow him as to the question of " religious 
rights " under our Constitution, and as to what Congress 
may or may not do in limiting individual liberty for the 
general good. I will give attention to the treaty with 
Tripoli, and the other matters mentioned by my friend,, 
so far as they seem to have any bearing on the issue 
between us. 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



36 



V. 
DK. CKOFFUT KEPLIES. 

Editor Post : Dr. Sunderland seems solicitous about 
the mint, anise, and cummin of this discussion — labor- 
ing to maintain non-essentials while ignoring or post- 
poning essentials. The question before us is, ought 
statute laws to be passed enforcing the observance of 
Sunday as a religious holiday? Neither the fourth 
commandment nor the practice of the apostles has the 
slightest bearing on this question. Those are consider- 
ations for churches and Sunday-schools, not for legisla- 
tures. 

The basal facts about the day which my friend calls 
" the Lord's day " seem to be these : Egyptians, Ara- 
bians, Persians, and Hindoos measured time thousands 
of years ago by seven-day divisions. Those ancient 
pagans, the Sabeans, assembled together for feasting 
and enjoyment on new-moon days, full-moon days, and 
the intervening quarter-moon days, thus dividing the 
month into periods of seven days, and these were called 
" Saba days." 

It seems that this " Saba day " was kept by the pa- 
gans as a rest and amusement day for centuries, perhaps 
ages, before the Jewish nation existed or Abraham was 
born ; that Jehovah,* the tutelary and exclusive deity of 
the Jews, appointed the seventh day, and not the first 
day of the week, as the Sabbath ; that Jesus habitually 
observed neither the seventh nor the first day as Sab- 
bath, but that he showed to its scrupulous observance 
a studious disrespect, and violated it himself, according 
to the record, at least eleven times, and that this was 



37 

one of the causes of his execution ; that the apostles 
<; kept " Saturday, but considered any Sabbath of little 
consequence; that Sunday was not identified with u Sab- 
bath " by the fathers till the fourth century ; that it was 
a Eoman Emperor and a Romish Pope, and not the He- 
brews' God nor the Christians' Savior who initiated the 
sabbatical observance of Sunday. 

All these facts I call non-essentials as concerning 
American legislation. Our only question is, ought stat- 
ute laws to be passed here and now enforcing the relig- 
ious observance of Sunday"? 

Such laws ought not to be passed. 

Our Government is a civic compact. 

It is founded not on opinions concerning the super- 
natural, but on man's right to govern himself in secular 
relations. 

In handing down the decision of the Supreme Court 
of Ohio that a contract made on Sunday was valid, Judge 
iUlen G. Thurman said: "Neither Christianity nor any 
other system of religion is part of the law of Ohio. The 
power to prescribe a day of rest is simply a municipal 
power and the injunction of a civil regulation. The 
General Assembly of Ohio is not a guardian of the sanc- 
tity of any day. If it may protect the first day of the 
week from desecration because it is the Christian Sab- 
bath, it may protect the sixth day because it is the holi- 
day of the Mohammedan, and the seventh day because 
it is the Sabbath of the Jew and the Seventh-Day Bap- 
tist.'' 

About the time that my friend Sunderland was born, 
Congress was flooded with petitions to stop carrying the 
United States mails on "the Lord's day." These were 



38 

referred to a committee, of which the distinguished 
Richard M. Johnson was chairman. After a prolonged 
hearing the request was refused, and Col. Johnson made 
a report containing these words : 

"Our Government is a civil and not a religious insti- 
tution. * * * Should Congress adopt the sentiment 
[of the petitioners] it would establish the principle that 
the Legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what 
are the laws of God. * * * The Constitution has 
wisely withheld from our Government the power of de- 
fining what is the divine law. * * * Do not all men 
in this country enjoy all religious rights which martyrs 
and saints ever asked? * * * What other nations 
call religious toleration we call religious rights. They 
are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, 
but as rights of which government cannot deprive any 
portion of its citizens, however small. Let the National 
Legislature once perform an act which involves the de- 
cision of a religious controversy, and it will have passed 
all legitimate bounds. If the principle is once estab- 
lished that religious observances shall be interwoven 
with legislative acts, we must pursue it to its ultima- 
tum." 

The carrying and delivery of mails on Sunday was 
continued and tremendously enlarged. Congress adopted 
the report of the committee. The people elected its 
chairman Vice-President of the United States. 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



VI. 

DR. SUNDERLAND REPLIES. 

Editok Post : Oh, now, brother Crofiut, where is 
that " colonial law " which you first spoke of 1 Having 



39 

shown beyond any reasonable refutation that the day 
we keep and which the first Christians kept is every- 
where in the Scriptures designated as a " Sabbath," or 
" one of the Sabbaths," and that this is the only proper 
Bible name of it, I trust I may now dismiss once for all 
the unfounded allegation that we have no Bible authority 
for keeping it, and inasmuch as Dr. CrofFut, who first 
introduced this topic, now thinks it is wholly immaterial 
to the real issue between us, I proceed to state his con- 
tention in his own words, namely : " Ours is a civil and 
secular government, whose Constitution forbids its 
Congress to make any law respecting religion — that 
legislators have no more right to embody in statutes 
the commands of God concerning worship or any 
religious rite than they have the commands of Baal." 

Now, taking this statement just as it is, though not 
quite as accurate as it should be, I ask my friend in 
what respect the pending bill militates his contention. 
There is not a word in it which enjoins worship or any- 
religious rite, and not the slightest intimation of any 
such thing. The requisitions of the bill deal wholly 
w T ith the secu]arities of the people. The bill declares 
that it shall be unlawful on a certain day of the week to 
engage in certain kinds of secular occupation. Dr. 
Croffnt has assented to leaving in force an existing law 
more severe than the bill in question, and yet opposes 
the enactment of this bill on the ground that it violates 
the religious liberty of the individual. It certainly no 
more violates individual religious liberty than the exist- 
ing law to which he assents. 

The tenor of the bill is to enjoin rest from labor. 
JJabor is wasting ; rest is recuperating. To impose rest 



40 

upon a man for the good of both body and mind is to 
promote the general welfare and happiness of the people, 
which was the very object in forming the Constitution ; 
and to call rest " a religions observance " in the eccle- 
siastical sense is a misnomer in terms. Is it for men 
who have no religion to attempt in the teeth of the Con- 
stitution to deprive the people of their rest day upon 
the point that a Sunday law of this kind violates their 
individual religious liberty ? Or that it imposes upon 
them " a religious observance " f All that it does or can 
impose upon them is that they shall cease from certain 
kinds of labor or secular occupation on one day in the 
w r eek. A man must have a singular notion of " religion " 
if he means by it the liberty to have no religion. It is 
a solecism in terms. 

My friend reminds me that the phrase " religious 
rights " always includes " irreligious rights " — that it 
" means not rights in religion but rights concerning 
religion." This is lucid to those that can see it, no 
doubt. How a man without religion can have any rights 
concerning religion is a problem to me. If he has any 
such rights, they must be concerning his neighbor's 
religion, for he has no religion himself. And what 
rights he has concerning his neighbor's religion the 
Constitution does not seem to define. I think we differ 
in our apprehension of the import of the Constitution 
itself. He claims that " Congress can make no law 
respecting religion," when the Constitution itself is a 
fundamental " law respecting religion." It explicitly 
protects u the free exercise of religion," and recognizes 
in terms the day we keep. "What the Constitution for- 
bids is an " establishment of religion " by law, legalizing 
a union of church and state — that is, an ecclesiastical 



41 

establishment supported by the state, such as prevails 
in Europe and as did prevail in some of the colonies 
prior to the Revolution. Making one day in seven a rest 
day for man and beast, does not go far toward building- 
up such a state religion as that. 

Now we come to the Tripoli treaty. George Wash- 
ington had nothing to do with it. It was negotiated by 
Joel Barlow, sent to the Senate by John Adams, and 
proclaimed June 10, 1797. 

' Joel, our negotiator on that occasion, more diffuse 
and promiscuous than his ancient namesake, the prophet, 
wrote a monstrous tome of poetry called " The Colum- 
biad." In the exuberance of his spirits he spread him- 
self out as a broad-minded liberal, until, in fact, he 
became slightly too liberal, as is seen in the fact of his 
manipulation of the fourteenth article of the treaty. It 
was pretty cheeky for a man to say that " this govern- 
ment is in no sense founded on the Christian religion ! " 
Consequently, that treaty could not stand with such a 
statement disgracing it. It was terminated by war, 
wiped from the statute book amid scenes of blood, and 
followed by another treaty, from which the obnoxious 
statement disappeared. My friend says, " the Govern- 
ment of the United States is not in any sense founded 
on the Christian religion, and that this is a part of the 
organic law." It was not so before 1797 — it never has 
been from 1806 to the present time. 

My time, I fear, is more than up. I pause here, to 
resume in my next some interesting points in my good 
friend's replies. " Selah " is an uncertain word — some- 
times meaning " hallelujah," but more frequently a pause 
in the music. Ohio will be heard from in due time. 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



42 

VII. 
DE. CROFFUT REPLIES. 

Editor Post: Hello! Hello — Dr. Sunderland! Are 
you there ! This is the seventh time I have called you 
up on The Post 'phone. You are looking cheerful and 
hearty to-day. Eh? No, this is not Babcock, of the 
House committee. Richardson I No, no ! This is 
Croffut. Oh, yes. Well. Sorry your last had to be put 
in type on Sunday. It fractured the Sabbath almost to 
pieces. Was it a work of mercy ? Sorry to trouble me ? 
Don't mention it, Doctor. It gives me pleasure to ir- 
radiate the gloom. For instance : 

You remark, " How a man without religion can have 
any rights concerning religion is a problem to me." 
Why, just as a man without money can have rights con- 
cerning money ; the right not to have bogus money 
passed on him. See! 

You further say, Doctor : " If he has any such rights, 
they must be concerning his neighbor's religion, for he 
has no religion himself." Exactly, Doctor ! You've hit 
the bull's eye. They are concerning his neighbor's re- 
ligion ; the right to reject it. 

I am glad you want to go to Europe with my party 
this summer. They say you're a good traveller. I know 
you're an agreeable companion. When I get you a thou- 
sand miles from shore we will investigate these occult 
phenomena — with more than 700 words. But say, Doc- 
tor, I must drop back to the third person. In talking 
with a gentleman of your cloth, it seems less flippant and 
familiar and more ceremonious and proper. 



43 

Since I remarked that there were colonial laws com- 
pelling people to go to church, Dr. Sunderland has 
twice asked me to copy one, adding, "It must be a 
curiosity. I, for one, would like to see it." Gives me 
pleasure to oblige. Here is the Virginia law — Mercer's 
Abridgment, page 209: 

If any Person of full Age shall be absent from Divine 
Service at his or her Parish Church or Chapel the 
Space of One Month (except such Protestant Dissenters 
as are excepted by the Act of Parliament made in the 
First Year of King William and Queen Mary) and shall 
not, when there, in a decent and orderly Manner, con- 
tinue till the Service is ended ; And, if any Person shall, 
on the Lord ? s Day, be present at any Disorderly Meet- 
ing, Gaming, or Tippling, or travel upon the Road, ex- 
cept to and from Church (Cases of Necessity and Char- 
ity excepted) or be found working in their Corn, To- 
bacco, or other Labour of their ordinary calling, other 
than is necessary for the sustenance of Man and Beast : 
Every such Person being lawfully convicted of such De- 
fault or Offence, by Confession, or otherwise, before one 
or more Justice or Justices of the County, within Two 
Months after such Default or Offence made or committed, 
shall forfeit and pay, Five Shillings, or Fifty Pounds of 
Tobacco, for every such Default or Offence ; and on Re- 
fusal to make present Paiment, or give sufficient Caution 
for Paiment thereof, at the laying the next Parish Levy, 
shall, by order of such Justice or Justices, receive on the 
bare Back, Ten Lashes, well laid on. 

" Curiosity." It is, indeed. Funny as thumb-screws. 
How it would have made John Calvin laugh ! Its repeal 
was secured by that arrant and illustrious infidel, 
Thomas Jefferson. 

This correspondence has done some good. The let- 



44 

ters of my friend Sunderland have convinced the advo- 
cates of a strict Sabbath observance that a law compel- 
ling it cannot be defended. So they have abandoned 
the bill which was before Congress when this discussion 
began and substituted a meeker one, whose theological 
purpose is less ostentatious. They have erased the 
"Sabbath,*' "the Lord's day," and the "divine appoint- 
ment " for which Brother Sunderland has so spiritedly 
contended, and now merely insist that everybody shall 
rest on Sunday — everybody, that is, except those who 
must work in order to carry lazy folks to church. Un- 
der this "reformed" bill The Post cannot be sold on 
Sunday from the office or any news stand ; ice-cream sa- 
loons and soda fountains may not mitigate the summer 
austerities ; boys are forbidden to play a game of ball, 
though half a mile from any house ; no excursion boat 
may visit Marshall Hall ; no train may come in from 
Baltimore ; nobody may take a buggy ride to Bladen s- 
burg or Glen Echo. A large number of meddlesome 
people from different parts of the country are here to 
urge the passage of this bill. The same people are ad- 
vocating the amendment of the Constitution so as to 
declare God the source of all power, Jesus Christ the 
ruler of nations, and the Bible the supreme law of the 
land. If Brother Sunderland wants to know whether 
there are any objections to this, he should attend the 
hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the House 
this (Wednesday) morning at 10 o'clock. 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



45 



VIII. 
DK. SUNDEKLAND KEPLIES. 

Editor Post : Now, dear Brother Croffut, that's a foul ! 
Who has been and gone and told you that I ask The 
Post to do any Sunday work for me and so smash the 
Christian Sabbath % Do you think it's right to tell tales 
on your brother out of school — and when they are fibs, 
too — and only to think, to blurt them through the tel- 
ephone, when you don't know but you may be exposing 
him to some sinister eaves-dropper, who may go out into 
the world and try to spoil his reputation ? Oh, what a 
boy ; w T hat a boy, so frisky, so frisky ! I only hope his 
morals may not suffer from his secular associations on 
Sunday. 

So tickled ! Half his article is telephone and the 
other half what he calls " mint, anise, and cumin." (I 
am glad to see he reads his Bible, at least semi-occa- 
sionally.) He has been over in Virginia and dug up 
some old church regulations for the discipline of church- 
members — not folks at large — but people who were 
under vows to attend their church, and he thinks that is 
the law for which I was inquiring. Why, if he wants to 
see the beauties of church discipline in full bloom in the 
olden time he should look at the earliest acts in Massa- 
chusetts. There everybody was a member of the church 
that was of sufficient age. There was no outside public 
but the babies. Of course, they compelled their mem- 
bers to live up to their vows or be punished. The same 
principle prevails in the church to-day, only the disci- 
pline consists in striking the delinquent from the roll 



46 

of membership. Every tyro in history ought to know 
these things. Jefferson was not " an arrant and illus- 
trious infidel" in the modern sense. He, with many 
others, was opposed to the union of church and state as 
it then existed in Virginia, and they together succeeded 
in breaking it up, and after the adoption of the Consti- 
tution it was broken up everywhere throughout the 
Union. I have long been familiar with all those old 
colonial regulations, and for that very reason I have 
pressed it upon my friend to show me a colonial law 
which compelled people who were not members of the 
church to attend church. Such a law as that would be 
to me a " curiosity." Let him show it if he can. This 
is the third time I call upon him to do me the favor. 

My friend is trying to make the impression that this 
is a purely theological contest in which Congress cannot 
meddle. If he can only get Congress to play the part 
of Gallio, he thinks he will be able to wipe out the Sab- 
bath institution altogether. But to do this he will have 
to repeal the Sunday laws now existing in almost every 
State of the Union, the successive acts of Congress in 
favor of one rest day in seven, the multitude of court 
decisions, and a half dozen decisions of the Supreme 
Court of the United States. The whole tenor of our 
municipal, State, and national legislation has been in 
favor of a Sunday rest from the beginning. It has 
proven an inestimable blessing to this country in every 
respect. How a man of my friend's intelligence and 
manly character can turn his back on the whole testi- 
mony of the past in favor of Sabbath observance passes 
my comprehension. At last, however, he clears up the 
tangled notion of "religious right." 



47 

We now understand that when a man without money 
claims the constitutional right to refuse money he is 
simply a fool. It is clear as mud. But what has that 
to do with legislation for a common rest day ? 

My friend suggests that I am overrunning my limit. 
He will remember it was to be at the risk of a "pro- 
tracted siege.'" For my part, I have only just com- 
menced the discussion. I want to review the action of 
Congress in 1830, the Ohio case, the " basal facts," and 
several other things introduced by my friend in this 
discussion, if space can be afforded. 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



IX. 
DR. CROFFUT REPLIES. 

Editor Post : 'Tis Sunday morning. I find myself 
engaged in the mutilation and divellication of Dr. Sun- 
deiiand's " Sabbath,'' because my serial letter on the 
observance of this day must be put in type before 12 
o'clock midnight for to-morrow's JPost. Yet, as news- 
papers furnish a library to every family every morning, 
containing in the aggregate ten times as much reading- 
matter as all the sermons in the land, and as enlighten- 
ment promotes peace, order, and morality, it strikes me 
that the Sunday type-setter, who makes the Monday 
morning paper possible, is about ten times as necessary 
as the carriage driver who takes the minister to church. 

In my last I inferred that this discussion had done 
good, because the champions of the Sunday bill had with- 
drawn it from Congress and substituted one of milder 



48 

import, which omitted religious injunctions, but under 
which, as I said, "The Post cannot be sold on Sunday 
from the office or any newsstand ; ice-cream saloons and 
soda fountains may not mitigate the summer austerities ; 
boys are forbidden to play a game of ball, though half a 
mile from any house ; no excursion boat may visit Mar- 
shall Hall ; no train may come in from Baltimore ; no- 
body may take a buggy ride." Since that estimate was 
published the District Commissioners have discarded 
the new bill, and they say, " Strictly construed, it would 
prevent the hiring of bicycles or cabs, the delivery of 
milk, ice, mineral waters, or Sunday papers, work on 
Monday papers, the running of street cars or steamboats, 
the hiring of horses or vehicles, the sale of railroad tick- 
ets, and the use of telephones." They add this informa- 
tion to Congress : " "Under the existing laws the first day 
of the week is recognized as a day of rest ; scenes of dis- 
order on that day are almost unknown ; the sale of liquor 
does not prevail, and no city in the United States can 
show a better record, so far as the peaceful and orderly 
observance of Sunday is concerned." They therefore 
recommend that this bill do not pass. 

It will be observed that this ungodly decision does not 
take theology into consideration. It says nothing about 
" Sabbath." It seems to regard ours as a civil govern- 
ment, and Sunday law as merely a municipal regula- 
tion devised to protect a holiday for rest and recreation, 
without any relation to its religious functions as " a day 
of worship." By one of those coincidences not uncom- 
mon, the authorities of the District, like the Congres- 
sional committee, have decided in favor of the position 
I have held and against the argument urged by Brother 
Sunderland. 



49 

The barbarous laws of the colonies concerning Sunday 
observance will not help us to decide what sort of Sun- 
day we should have on the edge of the twentieth century ; 
but I insist that the old Virginia law quoted in my last 
shall be accepted at its face value. It declared that " if 
any person of full age " shall be absent from his parish 
church a month, or shall leave before the service is ended, 
or travel on the road except to and from church, except 
in case of necessity, he shall be fined fifty pounds of 
tobacco or " receive on the bare back ten lashes well laid 
on." Dr. Sunderland thinks this refers to church-mem- 
bers only. If he will refer to the law and to the decis- 
ions of the court at that time, he will ascertain that he 
is mistaken, and that the law applied to everybody. 

But to meet all of the Doctor's objections without put- 
ting him to the least trouble, I hereby quote another 
statute of that same colony of Virginia (Historical Collec- 
tions Va., Henry Howe, p. 151) : 

Enacted, That the Lord's Day be kept Holy, and no 
Journeys be made on that Day, unless upon Necessity. 
And all Persons inhabiting in this Country having no 
lawful Excuse, shall every Sunday resort to the parish 
Church or Chapel, and there abide orderly during the 
common Prayer, Preaching, and Divine Service, upon 
penalty of being fined fifty pounds of tobacco by the 
County Court. 

I trust this meets my collaborator's spiritual doubts. 
The ghost of John Calvin arises to remark that this is 
the kind of law he likes. He adds some uncomplimentary 
remarks about the " lukewarmness " of Brother Sunder- 
land in seeming to object to statute laws which vigor- 
ously enforce with the lash the commands of God as 
amended by Constantine. W. A. CKOFFUT. 



50 

X. 

DK. SUNDEBLAND EEPLIES. 

Editoe Post : I am glad Brother Croffut thinks this 
discussion has done good. When two men can debate 
an important matter of this kind in a friendly spirit, as 
I think we have thus far, I do not see why good should 
not come out of it. Wherever the truth leads, there 
every true man will follow. 

The second rule cited by my friend is no better than 
the first as to the point I raised. Dr. Croffut had said 
that the colonial laws " compelled every person to go to 
church." I asked him for a specimen of this. He gave 
me a Virginia church regulation, which did not meet the 
case, for — 

1. It exempts all who are not of full age. 

2. It exempts all protestant dissenters. 

3. It exempts air who are engaged in works of neces- 
sity and charity. 

So he cites another regulation which compels only 
those who have "no lawful excuse." I do not yet see 
that he has made good his first statement that " every 
person was compelled to go to church." But it is, as he 
says, " non-essential," so let it drop. 

In the Ohio case, decided in 1853, a contract dated 
June 17, 1848, was, in truth, executed and delivered on 
Sunday. The suit was appealed to the Supreme Court 
of the State under a statute forbidding ordinary labor 
on Sunday. The court decided that the Sunday contract 
was not ordinary labor, and therefore valid, because it 
did not violate the statute forbidding ordinary labor on 



51 

Sunday. Judge Thurman delivered a long and elaborate 
opinion of eighteen pages full of obiter dicta from be- 
ginning to end, mere private opinions which had nothing 
todo with the case before them. All that was said con- 
cerning the religious aspect of the case was foreign to 
the issue.* 

The Sunday laws of Ohio, passed since that decision 
was rendered, are a full reply to what Judge Thurman 
said on that occasion. They are sections 3176, 3177, 
4951, 5458, 7032, and 7033. Judge Thurman, in deliver- 
ing his opinion, distinctly says: "It is not to be under- 
stood, however, that because the Sunday contract may 
be valid, therefore business may be transacted on that 
as on other days." He sought to distinguish between 
the word "business" and the word "labor." The law 
forbids Sunday labor, but the business of a Sunday con- 
tract, he says, is not labor ; and yet " business " may not 
be transacted on Sunday as on other days. If any one 
can see any consistency in these statements, he can do 
more than I can. It is mere seed-picking. 

Now, as to " the basal facts " of Sunday. My friend 
has developed a commendable proficiency in his acquaint- 
ance with ancient and modern pagan customs and man- 
ners, and seems to have obtained some smattering knowl- 
edge of the Scriptures. And though many of his state- 
ments are erroneous, this does not seem to detract from 
the merits of his diligence. Having stated what he calls 
" the basal facts of the Sabbath," many of which are no 
facts at all, and all of which he now repudiates as "non- 

* For example, Judge Thurman said : " Neither Christianity nor 
any other system of religion is part of the law of Ohio." Yet that 
seems relevant. — W. A. C. 



52 

essential," he proceeds to what he terms the only ques- 
tion before us, and even here he mistakes the real issue, 
which is not religious observance, but shall this land and 
this District have one rest day for man and beast 1 I 
have taken no part in the proceedings now pending. I 
know nothing of what is being done in or out of Congress 
on this subject, save what I see in the papers. My aim 
is to present my own views. The next item will be the 
action of 1830. 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



XL 

DR. CROEFUT REPLIES. 

Editor Post: In this desultory chat on "Sabbath- 
keeping," I desire to ask Dr. Sunderland to state what 
changes he wants in the manner in which Sunday is now 
observed in Washington. Will he give us a picture of 
his " Sabbath of divine appointment " which he wants 
enforced in this District by law ? 

I, too, would like to see some changes. I want to see 
the Corcoran Art Gallery open every Sunday.* I want 
to see the National Museum open every Sunday. I want 
to see the Monument elevator running every Sunday, 
and, above all, I want to see our superb Congressional 
Library open on Sunday, as soon as Mr. Spofford gets 
it into its new and sumptuous home. And I expect to 
see all these things. Now, if Dr. Sunderland please, we 
will have his notion of what Sunday laws we need. 

* A few weeks later the Corcoran Art Gallery was opened on 
Sunday afternoon and has been thus open ever since. — W. A. C. 



53 

Ours is a civil and secular government. It has noth- 
ing whatever to do with religion, excepting to legitima- 
tize all views concerning the Unknowable, and to protect 
everybody in the expression of them. Let me briefly 
review : 

1. The Constitution says nothing about God or Chris- 
tianity. 

2. Madison declared, " There is not a shadow of right 
in the general government to intermeddle with religion. 
The least interference would be a flagrant usurpation." 

3. Thomas Jefferson wrote : " Young man, question 
with boldness even the existence of a God, for, if there 
be one, he must more approve the homage of reason 
than of blindfold fear." 

4. Benjamin Franklin said: "I had been religiously 
educated as a Presbyterian, but some of the dogmas of 
that persuasion appeared to me unintelligible, and I 
early absented myself from the sect, Sunday being my 
studying day."* 

* As the remainder of this utterance of Franklin seems apposite, 
I quote it here : " Though I seldom attended any public worship, 
I had still an opinion of its propriety and of its utility when rightly 
conducted, and I regularly paid my annual subscription for the 
support of the only Presbyterian minister or meeting we had in 
Philadelphia. He used to visit me sometimes as a friend and ad- 
monish me to attend his administrations, and I now and then pre- 
vailed on myself to do so, once for five Sundays successively. 
But his discourses were chiefly either polemical arguments or ex- 
plications of the peculiar doctrines of one sect and were all to me 
very dry, uninteresting, and unedifying, since not a single moral 
principle was inculcated or enforced. At length he took for his 
text that verse of the fourth chapter to the Philippians, ' Finally, 
brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, or 



54 

5. George Washington secured the negotiation of the 
treaty with Tripoli, which contains, as part of our funda- 
mental law, this declaration : " The government of the 
United States of America is not in any sense founded 
on the Christian religion." 

My friend Dr. Sunderland (I had a glimpse of him 
yesterday in the Senate gallery and he looked cheery 
and vivacious as ever, notwithstanding the fatigue and 
exposures of the campaign) makes a very serious mistake 
concerning this treaty. He says " George Washington 
had nothing to do with it," for it "was sent to the Sen- 
ate by John Adams, and proclaimed June 10, 1797." 

Let us see whether Washington had anything to do 
with it. 

During his first administration Algerine pirates cap- 
tured eleven of our ships, imprisoned the officers for 
ransom, and sold the sailors — a hundred — into slavery 
in Tripoli. Consternation prevailed in America. What 
did Washington do? He appointed his most intimate 
personal friend to be Plenipotentiary to Tripoli — David 
Humphreys, who had been on his staff during the Revo- 
lution, and a member of his family at Mount Vernon for 
four years thereafter. Humphreys went ; met with un- 

of good report, if there be any virtue or any praise, think on these 
things.' And I imagined that, in a sermon on such a text, we could 
not miss having some morality. But he confined himself to five 
points only, viz: 1, keeping holy the Sabbath day; 2, being dil- 
igent in reading the holy Scriptures ; 3, attending duly the public 
worship; 4, partaking of the sacrament; 5, paying a due respect 
to God's ministers ! These might all be good thiDgs, but as they 
were not the kind of good things that I expected from that text, I 
despaired of ever meeting with them from any other, was dis- 
gusted, and attended his preaching no more." 



55 

foreseen obstacles ; reported difficulties ; and a year 
later Washington turned to Joel Barlow — poet, scholar, 
linguist, philosopher, traveler, publicist, the wittiest and 
most eminent unemployed statesman of the day — the 
John James Ingalls of the Revolutionary period — and 
said to him: " David is in trouble. I appoint you Con- 
sul General to Tripoli. Go and help ransom our en- 
slaved sailors." Joel joined David. They bought the 
American citizens for a million dollars. They concluded 
on' November 4, 1796, and signed January 4, 1797, a 
treaty bearing the declaration : " The government of the 
United States of America is not in any sense founded 
on the Christian religion.'' They sent home the sailors 
and carried home the treaty. Washington read it; ap- 
proved it ; thanked them for their high service. He 
retired from office and the treaty was actually pro- 
claimed by his successor — the iron-clad old Presbyterian, 
John Adams. 

In saying "Washington had nothing to do with it," 
Brother Sunderland forgot that it is much more neces- 
sary to be careful when dealing with facts than when we 
are merely preaching. 

W 7 hat next? Why, the various religious sects of 
Washington applied to Congress for land to build their 
churches on. Congress refused it. They then applied 
for acts of incorporation. The government refused 
these. In expressing his disapproval of the scheme 
President Madison said : " Because the bill exceeds the 
rightful authority to which governments are limited by 
the essential distinction between civil and religious 
functions, and violates in particular the article in the 



56 

Constitution which says : ' Congress shall make no law 
respecting the establishment of religion.' "* 

Was the First Presbyterian Church of Washington 
one of the applicants ? 

W. A. CKOFFUT. 



XII. 
DE. SUNDEBLAND EEPLIES. 

Editok Post : I will attend to my friend's Saturday 
article in a future reply. I am not specially familiar 
with what was done in the Senate of 1829-30 on the 
Sunday question, but action was taken in the House. 
At that time the mail system was in its childhood, com- 
pared with what it is to-day. I freely concede that Sab- 
bath work of necessity or mercy may be done in that 
department. A law regulating the mail system then ex- 
isted, and under the construction of the Post-office De- 
partment that law was complied with by holding the 
post-offices open at least one hour on Sunday, provided 
it did not interfere with the time of public worship. 
Mr. Johnson seems to have approved that state of things. 
Many of the best people of the country wished the mail 
service to enjoy a full day of rest on the Sabbath and 
sent to Congress earnest petitions to that effect. Coun- 
ter petitions were also sent. All were referred to the 
House committee of which Mr. Johnson was chairman. 
In March, 1830, this committee presented a majority and 

* Madison further says : ' ' The Constitution gives no more au- 
thority to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a single 
individual than one affecting a whole community." — W. A. C. 



57 

minority report, Mr. Johnson, with much irrelevant mat- 
ter concerning its religious aspect, claiming that the 
existing law was sufficient. The next day Mr. McCreary 
presented the views of the minority, ably refuting the 
irrelevancies of Mr. Johnson. Both reports were re- 
ferred to the Committee of the Whole, and 10,000 copies 
of each ordered to be printed. I can find nothing more 
that was done about it in the House, yet my friend, with 
characteristic inaccuracy, says : "Congress adopted the 
report of the committee." In this connection he takes 
pains to stigmatize the very best people in the country 
as u fanatics." I do not think he could strictly mean this 
as anything more than a " poetic license," to which he is 
fairly entitled, and in moments of poetic elevation he is 
liable to utter things for which he should hardly be held 
responsible in his sober senses. 

My friend seems to have been dwelling with the 
muses several times during this discussion. His vivid 
contrast between the ministry of the press and the min- 
istry of the pulpit one Sabbath morning ; his levitation 
at the thought of having scattered all the hosts of 
"fanatics" from the sabbatic field, and gained a victory 
at every point, evince in the clearest manner the great 
departure which has been made from the views and con- 
victions of the fathers and founders of the republic. 

The first Congress made an appropriation for the im- 
portation of 20,000 copies of the Bible. What an out- 
cry the Secular League would have raised in that day if 
there had been one ! Oh, yes, we have made wonderful 
progress in the way of unrestricted liberty. What a 
disaster it will be to society when boys can't play games 
on Sunday, making the streets hideous with noise. 



58 

What a calamity to the world when on one day out of 
seven no youngster can get a buggy to take his girl out 
to Chevy Chase. What a collapse of freedom will come 
upon us when the plate printers are deprived of their 
Sunday dance, with whiskeys and beer in abundance. 
Why, Brother Croffut, just picture to yourself the awful 
dismay that will fill all hearts ! It fairly drives me into 
dreamland. Imagine a monster form rising on the face 
of the earth. It is called the "Secular League." It is 
reinforced by Congressional committees, by District 
Commissioner, by Second Adventists, the deceivers of 
the world, by Seventh-Day Baptists, infatuated with ex- 
ploded Jewish calendars; by thousands of printers' 
devils, by anti-Sabbatarians of every ilk, by Sunday ex- 
cursionists, baseball teams, bicycle and buggy riders, 
ice-cream eaters, Judge Thurman's opinion, Johnson's 
defunct report, the defeat of the " fanatics," the disciples 
of Constantine, the guild of mitered pontiffs, the dozen 
rickety dictionaries, the New Testament revisers who 
did agree to substitute "bowl" for "vial" in the apoca- 
lypse, the wide circle of hoodlums still widening in the 
land, the lies about George Washington, the saloon- 
keepers, the club houses, and all the general riffraff of 
the country round. And in this dream I saw an "illumi- 
nation " such as the human race never yet beheld. Before 
that gleam Christianity itself "paled its ineffectual fires." 
The church was consumed like flax, the flame died from 
the altar, and over the ashes of religion that monster 
form proclaimed "peace, order, and morality!" "I 
come," it said, "to turn a desert world into an eternal 
paradise. I am the genius of Utopia, the spirit of the 
vasty deep, the minister of an unknown power to bring 



59 

in the true millennium. " And at that voice a man arose 

and shouted " Selah ! " with a thundering shout, at which 

I awoke, and behold, it was a dream ! See Monday 

police reports ! 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



XIII. 
DR. CROFFUT REPLIES. 

Editor Post : Your miraculous Mergenthaler type- 
founder is so nearly inspired that it is almost infallible, 
but in my last letter it substituted " legislatize " for "le- 
gitimatize," and thereby made me indulge in neological 
nonsense. 

When Col. Richard M. Johnson reported from his 
committee the bill to prohibit mail carrying on Sunday, 
recommending "that it do not pass," Congress concurred 
by not allowing it to pass. Of this I said : " Congress 
adopted the report of the committee." Dr. Sunderland 
declares, " nothing more was done about it in the House," 
and calls this my "characteristic inaccuracy." In both 
respects he is correct. Nothing more was done about it, 
and this kind of inaccuracy is characteristic of me. He 
has lived here so many years, and officiated so much as 
chaplain of the House, that he knows, of course, that the 
way in which Congress adopts an adverse report on a 
bill is by not passing the bill. Hence his compliment. 
I modestly hope that it is deserved, and that this is, as 
he says, a fair specimen of my accuracy. 

My friend Sunderland complains that I " stigmatize 
the very best people of the country as 'fanatics.'" I 



60 

don't remember doing so ; but I have no hesitation in 
stigmatizing fanatics — almost all fanatics — as being, as 
far as mere goodness goes, among the very best people 
of any country. Fanatics are dominated by an idea. 
They have sympathy without knowledge ; imagination 
without judgment; moral sense without common sense. 
I beg that Dr. Sunderland will notice that it is not con- 
science that men need half as much as it is exact infor- 
mation, serious though tfulness, and an intelligent com- 
prehension of the relation of things. 

Dr. Sunderland says, " the first Congress made an ap- 
propriation for the importation of 20,000 copies of the 
Bible." Will he kindly point out some official document 
in which that fact is definitely stated ? 

The last half of Dr. Sunderland's letter of Monday is 
alarming to the nervous. It is a terrible foreshadowing 
and hind-shadowing of calamities past, present, and to 
come. It sounds like the Lamentations of Jeremiah, 
crossed with the ninth chapter of Revelations. I beg the 
Doctor to be calm. There is no cause for distress, and 
no reason for ringing the fire bells yet. Americans are 
fit for self-government seven days in every week ; the 
Twentieth Century is at our doors ; some disorder will 
doubtless be mingled with our order, but, on the whole, 
our democratic republic is like the new-fangled locomo- 
tive which devours its own smoke, and we shall still, with 
progressive steps, move slowly forward in the enjoyment 
of liberty protected by law. 

And now, lo ! another clergyman reinforces Dr. Sun- 
derland by an appeal for a new Sunday law to prevent 
" servile labor " in the District of Columbia. The use of 
this word " servile " is a very bad break ; it indicates 



61 

that the writer has inadverteDtly copied some old law of 
slavery times. I guess it is not needed. 

The Churchman's League holds that a new and explicit 
Sunday law is needed here because, although stores are 
not now open, some wicked person might take a notion 
to open them ! Its representative says : " Should every 
store in the city of Washington be open to-morrow for 
the sale of articles, there is no law which could close any 
of them, except stores for the sale of liquor." Then, in 
the name of all that is reasonable, where is the need of 
any law? Does he want a law to close stores which are 
habitually shut ? 

And then, sure enough, he declares that there are seven 
Sunday laws in force in the District now, and that is the 
reason why he wants more. He has a vision of " hun- 
dreds of weary clerks and laborers surrendering their 
rest day to the selfishness of competing capitalists." And, 
therefore, forsooth, he would prevent them from taking 
a buggy ride on Sunday ; he would prevent them from 
buying a glass of soda or a plate of ice cream ; he would 
prevent them from playing innocent games in the city's 
spacious suburbs ; he would forbid their buying a cigar ; 
he would prohibit the sale of milk or ice or perishable 
fruit ; he would prevent a railroad company from repair- 
ing its tracks so that they might ride ; he would impose 
a fine of from $5 to $50 on "weary clerks and laborers" 
who take a cheap little excursion ten miles down the Po- 
tomac. Is this the best way to show consideration for 
laborers who are very weary and not very rich ? 

W. A. CBOFFUT. 



62 

XIY. 
DR. SUNDERLAND REPLIES. 

Editor Post : Either Brother Croffut is in a deep hole 
or else I am. He said Washington signed the treaty ; 
I replied Washington had nothing to do with it. What 
does this pronoun " it " stand for ? I hope my friend 
has not taken leave of his grammar. It does not stand 
for Humphreys, nor Barlow, nor a dozen other things 
mentioned in his rather florid account. It stands sim- 
ply for the signing the treaty. It was signed by Barlow, 
January 3, 1797, at Tripoli. It was sent to Humphreys 
at Lisbon, who indorsed it February 10, 1797, " subject 
to the approval of the President by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate." It could not have left 
Lisbon for Philadelphia before that date — only twenty- 
two or twenty-three days remained of Washington's last 
term. Voyages from Lisbon to Philadelphia in those 
times usually consumed from forty to sixty days. 

Now my friend amends his statement. He says, " They 
carried it home ; Washington read, approved it, and 
thanked them!" Whereas neither Humphreys nor Bar- 
low left Europe at that time ; nor could the treaty by any 
or dinary course have arrived in time for President Wash- 
ington to read and approve it. If my friend still insists 
t hat it did, he will please give chapter and verse. Let 
us have no loose preaching this time. 

Yes, I know John Adams sent it to the Senate, and 
afterward proclaimed it ; but how much of a Presby- 
terian he was at the time, or what his opinion of Bar- 
low was, I leave my friend to discover. 



63 

The treaty was ill-fated in all ways. 

1. It bore a falsehood on its face. 

2. It was made with a set of pirates, whose aim was 
plunder and extortion. 

3. It was procured by the most humiliating and abject 
compliances. 

4. It was a constant source of trouble and anno} r ance 
as long as it lasted. 

5. It was finally terminated by sending United States 
war vessels to the Barbary coast and compelling the 
corsairs to make another treaty, from which the glaring 
falsehood was expunged. This was in 1805-6, and I 
still believe that it is a perversion of truth and a blot on 
the memory of Washington for any man (except friend 
CrofTut) to say that he indorsed so unchristian a state- 
ment as that. 

Now as to the religious sects asking Congress for lots 
to build churches on and for incorporations. I have not 
examined the record and I find I cannot rely on my friend 
always to give me correct information. Possibly it was 
so. It matters little how it was. Our old church, as far 
back as 1795, was granted the use of the carpenter's shop 
to hold religious meetings in. The shop was erected for 
the convenience of the workmen on the White House. 
I suppose my friend would hold this to be "unconstitu- 
tional " — " a union of church and state" — " a violation of 
the civil compact." It only shows how far he has drifted 
from the original moorings of opinion. Later on it was 
worse still, for when the Capitol was sufficiently advanced 
our people had the use of the Supreme Court room, where 
they held their first communion service. And even so late 
as 1868 Congress gave our church an act of incorpora- 



64 

tion. I don't know what Brother Croffut will do about 
this, but I hope he is too generous a man to ask for the 
repeal of our charter. It is not so very many long years 
ago that the chaplains of the two Houses of Congress 
conducted Sabbath service in the Capitol, which was 
attended quite largely by the members and their families 
and the general public. I presume if it were now pro- 
posed, whew ! What an uproar there would be ! " Union 
of church and state !" " An establishment of religion !" 
" Death and destruction to human liberty!" " This gov- 
ernment is only a civil compact !" " It has nothing to do 
with religion!" "The Constitution says nothing about 
God or Christianity !" How many times has my friend 
reiterated this in ever-varying forms ! Well, we have 
been so busy with what he is pleased to style " the mint, 
anise, and cumin," — the other " non-essentials" — that we 
have hardly touched on the vital character of our institu- 
tions. But we will get there after awhile ; the siege may 
be protracted, but the discussion, he says, will do good. 
In my next I want to " put a flea in his ear " about open- 
ing museums, art galleries, libraries, &c, on the Sabbath. 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



XV. 

DR. CROFFUT REPLIES. 

Editor Post : He who has partaken of the whole of 
this succulent and nourishing serial will observe that I 
have constantly insisted that all " Sunday rest " must 
be based on the secular needs of the citizen, and not on 
his theological needs — Qn worldly and not other-worldly 



65 

considerations. I understand Dr. Sunderland — gentle as 
is his voice — to insist upon exactly the contrary. He 
says that it is " an unchristian statement " to declare, 
as Washington's treaty-makers declared, that " the gov- 
ernment of the United States of America is not in any 
sense founded on the Christian religon." I think it 
probably is unchristian. But the question is, is it true ? 
I think it is true. If the United States government is 
founded on the Christian religon, then the union of 
church and state is already complete, and there is no 
reason why everybody should not be taxed to pay the 
ministers' salaries as they are now taxed to pay the 
churches' taxes. I warn Brother Sunderland that he is 
skating on thin ice here, and he had better look out 
for the signal, " Danger." 

I would have on Sunday a condition of real rest — not 
of mere quietness ; of refreshment and renewal, not of 
mere inertia ; of enjoyment, not of enforced torpor. Very 
often nothing is so fatiguing as keeping still. Often 
playing is rest, dancing is rest, music is rest, jovial con- 
versation is rest, bicycling is rest, driving is rest, laugh- 
ter is rest, running is rest.* I would have a Sunday per- 
petually secured for Washington in which all these sorts 
of rest are attainable, and that, too, without any regard 
for what the Bible says about it, or any appeal to Ameri- 
can statute books to see whether they contain any re- 
ligious legislation or not. If our statute books do con- 
tain laws obviously religious, they must be expunged — 
that is the answer to that. 

* " Rest is not quitting the busy career ; 
Rest is the fitting of self to the sphere ; 
Loving and serving the highest and best — 
Onward! unswerving! O, this is true rest. 5 ' 



66 

Will Brother Sunderland tell us about those ten 
thousand Bibles 1 

Will he and the Churchman's League explain how the 
mention of Sunday in the Constitution as a day when 
the President may not sign bills makes it a religious 
holiday, any more than the mention of the Fourth of July 
in laws makes the Fourth of July a religious holiday'? 

u ' This government is only a civil compact !' How often 
has my friend reiterated this in ever-varying forms !" in- 
quires Dr. Sunderland, after some impatient-looking ex- 
clamation points. Why, yes ; quite several times, I 
think, and may still have occasion to encore. The way 
for Dr. Sunderland to keep from hearing it any more is 
to shout it once earnestly on his own account. Unless 
he does he will remind us of the cantankerous Athenian 
who was irritated by hearing Aristides continually called 
"The Just." 

Dr. Sunderland says that the First Presbyterian 
Church, after living more than half a century without a 
charter, was incorporated by Congress in 1868, and adds, 
"I don't know what Brother Croffut will do about this." 
Nothing, if the First Presbyterian Church will pay its 
taxes. If it continues to hold valuable property and 
shirk its taxes — if it persists in occupying its premises 
at the expense of others — if it declines to be bound by 
the reciprocal rules of equity which bind all other busi- 
ness corporations in this city — it will hear a loud and 
continually swelling chorus of remonstrance which will 
ring in its corporate ears till justice is done. So much 
for that. 

Dr. Sunderland said in his letter of March 9, " Now 
we come to the Tripoli treaty. George Washington had 



67 

nothing to do with it." I thereupon showed that Wash- 
ington had almost everything to do with it. The Doctor 
now explains : 

He said Washington signed the treaty. I replied 
Washington had nothing to do with it. What does this 
pronoun " it " stand for % 

I supposed "it" stood for the treaty. But the Doc- 
tor says no, it stands for the " signed." Well, all I have 
to say is that it must wrench the vitals of a personal 
pronoun most dreadful bad to make it stand for an active- 
transitive verb ! I beg that the Doctor will take notice 
that personal pronouns have some rights: they have 
feelings like unto us, and it behooves us not to subject 
the poor dumb things to such inhuman — not to say 
" unchristian" — treatment. I trust he will not be guitly 
of this sacrilegious conduct any more.. 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



XVI. 
DR. SUNDERLAND REPLIES. 

Editor Post : Brother CrofTut gives it up. Washing- 
t on never saw nor signed the Tripoli treaty. Let us 
have no more misrepresentations of it. 

My friend flatters me overmuch. He even compares 
my writings to the sacred Scriptures. Johnson reported 
no bill, only a resolution that the committee be discharged 
fr om further consideration of the subject. If no action 
of the House after the motion to print means that "Con- 
gress adopted the report of the committee," then he is 



68 

accurate. If not, not. I leave parliamentarians to de- 
cide. 

My friend is coming to be more precise. We may 
both profit by the scrutiny. I will amend my former 
statement by saying " the First Congress directed the im- 
portation of 20,000 copies of the Bible." See Journal 
American Congress, vol. 2, page 261 et. seq. He will 
also find there some interesting reading, which would 
sound strangely in a meeting of " the Secular League " 
of our day. 

I thought the discussion was to be between us two. 
Good Dr. Elliott I leave to speak for himself. I fully 
appreciate my friend's remarks on the subject of "fanat- 
ics." Is this also one of the " non-essentials" ? 

Now he is going in for opening the public libraries, 
museums, art galleries, monuments, &c, on the Sabbath. 
If he carries that measure through, what shall hinder us 
from holding religious services in those places on that 
day ? You have no right to interfere with the free exer- 
cise of religion. You can't shut it out from those places 
if you open them at all on the Sabbath. The world will 
have no monopoly of them. Now set them open if you 
want public worship there. Some may object that the 
attendants who have been serving all the week need a 
rest day ; that it seems unchristian to deprive them of it. 
Brother Croffut, being a secularist, may reply that it will 
be no harder for them than for the coachmen " who drive 
lazy people to church." There are several ways of look- 
ing at things. Let us keep on looking. 

Now he says " the Constitution forbids Congress to 
make any law respecting religion." I deny it. There 
is no such thing in the book. He says our government is 



69 

a "civil compact." Yes ; civil and religious too. It was 
set up by " civil " men, most of whom were Christians. 
They provided in the Constitution the moaus operandi 
of the government, and protected the free exercise of the 
Christian religion, for that was the only religion then in 
vogue in this country among our people. Nothing was 
then Jieard about the hifalutin " unknowable," the neb- 
ulous u supernatural," the Mormon religion, and the 
Second Advent craze of later days. Even Thomas Paine 
believed in God. He had been once a Quaker preacher. 

My friend still insists that " our government is in no 
sense founded on the Christian religion," though that 
heresy was squelched in 1805-6. In the name of all 
reason, what, then, is it founded on ! He replies, " On the 
right of man to govern himself in secular relations." But 
we have already seen that man has other rights and other 
relations clearly recognized and provided for in the Con- 
stitution. That document was the legitimate outgrowth 
arid special product of the Christian religion, and never 
could have been formed, so far as we know, aside from 
the influence of that religion. Has my friend forgotten 
that thrilling scene in the convention when all was on 
the brink of failure, and Franklin's speech about looking 
up to God for help in that crisis ? When the vote for 
prayer to God was taken, there was only a single nega- 
tive. The " Secular League " at that trying moment con- 
sisted of one member. Oceans of testimony might be 
produced to show the overwhelming power of the Chris- 
tian religion in forming that national charter. 

Yet he still says the words " God " and " Christianity " 
are not in the charter. And what of that ? So the phrase 
" popular sovereignty " is not in the charter, yet does 



70 

not every schoolboy know that this is a government " of 
representatives chosen by the people"? 

Four times the Constitution requires an oath of office 
to be taken before any man can perform the slightest 
official duty. That oath is a direct appeal to God, the 
searcher of hearts. The Bible is to-day the book of com- 
mon law in all our courts. On it the oath is taken. The 
very date of the Constitution is a recognition of Christ 
and religion. Blackstone says that " the law of nature 
and the sacred or divine law are superior in obligation 
to any others ; that no human laws are of any validity 
if contrary to them, and that no human law should be 
suffered to contradict them." Com. B. I., p. 41-2. We 
shall hear enough of this matter before we finish. 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



XVII. 
DR. CROEFUT REPLIES. 

Editor Post : Some churchly zealots, who rely on their 
fancies for their facts and on their emotions for their con- 
clusions, are imposing on my amiable collaborator, Dr. 
Sunderland. It is wanton trespassing. I won't have it. 
Cave canem! They will keep this up at their peril! 

Ten days ago, being, perhaps, thus inspired, he was 
moved to say: " The first Congress made an appropri- 
ation for the importation of 20,000 copies of the Bible." 

On April 1 this was modified so as to read : " The first 
Congress directed the importation of 20,000 copies of the 
Bible." 



71 

I find the facts to be as follows : During the second 
year of the Revolutionary war all necessities of life be- 
came very scarce. The Continental Congress was in- 
formed that there was keen suffering in different parts 
of the country on account of the scarcity of Bibles : and 
on September 11, 1777, in a moment of inadvertence, 
it passed, by a vote of 7 to 5, by States, this: 

Eesolved, That the Committee on Commerce be di- 
rected to import 20,000 copies of the Bible. 

Ordered, That the consideration thereof be postponed 
to Saturday next. 

This postponement was to consider the appropriation 
for them. The subject was not taken up on Saturday. 
It was not even taken up on Sunday, or the "Lord's day," 
when Congress met, without any allegation of necessity, 
mercy, or exigency, and transacted a lot of worldly busi- 
ness. It was never taken up at all, as far as I can ascer- 
tain from the Journal. Those Bibles were never im- 
ported. Why not ! 

Because that very hour, when the Bibles were being 
voted for, Washington suffered his terrible and bitter 
defeat of ChadcVs Ford; a letter from the Secretary, 
Thomas Paine, brought the news from Washington's 
headquarters before midnight : and next morning Con- 
gress fled in panic from Philadelphia to reassemble at 
Lancaster. Perhaps members thought that if God was 
so ostentatiously on the side of tyranny, they wouldn t 
buy any of his books. But they did some other things 
about this time. They bought shoes for the barefooted 
patriots retreating through the Jerseys. And they 
" unanimously " passed the following : 



72 

Resolved, That Gen. Washington be empowered to 
increase the Ration of Soap at his discretion. 

Feeling that cleanliness was next to godliness — next 
preceding — they ordered soap instead of Scriptures. 
Honest, now, doesn't Brother Sunderland think they did 
the right thing % I am his best friend, and he can tell 
me confidentially — nous avons, as Mrs. Malaprop says. 

These apostles of misinformation also deceived Dr. 
Sunderland on that same All Fools' day about Franklin's 
plea for prayer in the constitutional convention. 

He said : 

Has my friend forgotten that thrilling scene in the 
convention when all was on the brink of failure and 
Franklin's speech about looking up to God for help in 
that crisis ? When the vote for prayer to God was taken, 
there was only a single negative. 

The real, true, genuine facts are these : Franklin made 
a speech June 28, 1787, declaring that without prayer 
every day the convention could not form a government 
that would be good for anything, and made a motion 
for a chaplain. Hamilton warned the assembly that if 
persisted in it would bring on a " disagreeable " discus- 
sion. Williamson said that there were no funds, and 
intimated that no minister would pray without pay. 
Now, I quote Madison's Debates : 

After several unsuccessful attempts for silently post- 
poning this matter by adjourning, an adjournment was 
at length carried without any vote on the motion. 

And in a note Dr. Franklin himself says : " The con- 
vention, except three or four persons, thought prayers 
unnecessary." 



73 

So Benjamin Franklin's memory that all but "three 
or four persons " were against his motion doesn't ex- 
actly tally with Brother Sunderland's recollection that 
" there was only a single negative." It seems to me, 
however, that B. F. had the best chance of knowing all 
about the " thrilling scene." Anyhow, there were no 
prayers. 

Dr. Sunderland says : " My friend flatters me over- 
much ; he even compares my writings with the sacred 
Scriptures." I haven't done anything of the sort ; for 
that would be unkind to him. I contrasted them. Dr. 
Sunderland's writings are not only a great deal more 
refined than the Bible, but they are a great deal more 
correct in their statements of fact. 

Reverting to the allegation of Washington's treaty- 
makers that our government " is in no sense founded on 
the Christian religion," Dr. Sunderland asks : " In the 
name of all reason, what, then, is it founded on?" On 
that which he invokes — All Reason. It is founded on 
the fraternal feelings and the sense of equity of the aver- 
age man — on his judgment enlightened by experience. 
Ours is not a government of God, by God, and for God, 
but distinctly a government of the People — with a cap- 
ital P. 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



XVIII. 

DR. SUNDERLAND REPLIES. 

Editor Post : My friend with classic elegance refers to 
Aristides the Just. Does he also recall that other Aris- 



74 

tides who was more fond of a joke than of truth 1 He 
warns me to begin to shout if I wish to survive his encores. 
If he will allow me, I prefer to shoot. I wish to pour a 
broadside into this Chinese junk of " modern secularism.'' 
Much like, I fancy, the boat of Charon, ferrying shades 
to Tartarus. (No offence intended.) 

The book is entitled " Christian Life and Character of 
the Civil Institutions of the United States," by B. F. 
Morris. See Congressional Library. In 700 words I can 
do no more than refer to the subjects and pages to which I 
invite my friend's particular attention. He will find it 
profitable reading : George Washington, pp. 271-298, 
pp. 380-382, pp. 429-431, pp. 442-478, and pp. 479-520 ; 
John Adams, pp. 117-119 ; John Quincy Adams, pp. 181- 
186 ; Thomas Jefferson, pp. 134-136 and pp. 173-174 ; 
James Madison, pp. 155-156, pp. 177-178, and pp. 549- 
550 ; James Monroe, pp. 157-175 ; Andrew Jackson, pp. 
186-191 ; Benjamin Franklin, pp. 127-134 and pp. 249- 
255 ; Thomas S. Grimke, pp. 25-40, and p. 625 ; Lord 
Bacon, p. 228 ; John Calvin, p. 59, and pp. 110-111 ; Pres- 
byterian Church, p. 432; District of Columbia, p. 633 ; 
Admiral Foote, p. 790 ; Theodore Frelinghuysen, pp. 265- 
266; Daniel Gardner, pp. 611-612, and Sir Matthew 
Hale, pp. 635-665. 

Bead these pages carefully: John Hancock, p. 117 
Patrick Henry, pp. 115-116 ; Thomas Hooker, p. 645 
John Jay, pp. 149-153 ; Chancellor Kent, pp. 655-657 
Kuf us King, p. 658 ; Lamartine, pp. 203-205 ; Henry Lee, 
p. 303 ; Abraham Lincoln, pp. 557-813 ; William Living- 
ston, pp. 161-164; John Marshall, pp. 637-638; George 
Mason, pp. 137-138 ; Gouverneur Morris, pp. 138-139 ; 
Judge Nash, p. 276 ; Ordinance of 1787, pp. 275-276 ; 



75 

Judge Parsons, p. 264 and pp. 650-655 ; Beligion, pp. 
206-207; Kawle on the Constitution, pp. 245-270; 
Kichard Bush, pp. 141-143; Sabbath, pp. 199-200, 
pp. 224-225, pp. 264-265-266, and pp. 785-790 ; Win- 
field Scott, pp. 782-783; William H. Seward, pp. 714- 
744 ; Statesmen of the Revolution, pp. 110-180 and pp. 
167-168 ; Judge Story, pp. 257-259, p. 269, and p. 639; 
Daniel Webster, p. 169 and pp. 198-202, and Women, 
pp. 388-419 and pp. 793-796. 

Now, when my friend has " read, marked, and inwardly 
digested " these historic excerpts, we may be better able 
to compute the value of his opinion that " our govern- 
ment is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." 

I will here add but one more witness — a writer of the 
revolutionary period. Speaking of " a continental char- 
ter," he said, " it should be understood as a solemn obli- 
gation, which the whole enters into to support the right 
of every separate part, whether of religion, personal 
freedom, or property. 

" But where, say some, is the king of America ? I'll 
tell you, friend. He reigns above, and doth not make 
havoc of mankind, like the royal brute of Britain. Yet 
that we may not appear to be defective even in worldly 
honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming 
the charter — let it be brought forth, placed on the di- 
vine law — the word of God ! 

" For myself I fully and conscientiously believe that 
it is the will of the Almighty that there should be a di- 
versity of religious opinions among us. It affords a 
larger field for Christian kindness. Were we all of one 
way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want 
matter for probation. And on this liberal principle I 



76 

look on the various denominations among us to be like 
children of the same family — differing only in what is 
called their Christian names." 

Now, Brother Croffut, who do you guess* wrote the 
above ? There are several points in my friend's Saturday 
letter which should be corrected for the sake of historic 
accuracy — want of space only prevents. 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



XIX. 
DB. CBOFFUT EEPLIES. 

Editor Post : I would not, like a fanatic, abolish our 
Sunday, or, like a fanatic, impose it on others. My friend, 
Dr. Sunderland, is far superior to any of the voluntary 
assistants of the Churchman's League — superior to them 
in logic, good sense, good temper, good grammar, and, 
especially, in wide and exact information about the Un- 
knowable ; and it is impertinent and egotistical in them 
to go to clapping on twelve-ounce gloves and rushing 
to the rescue. 

One of these superserviceable acolytes declares that 
a man can have no more rightj to work or play on Sun- 
day than to rob and murder ! This is very foolish talk ; 

* Don't know. Thomas Paine ?— W. A. C. 

t Some orthodox ministers are more reasonable. Note, for in- 
stance, this : " While the State makes laws to compel the observ- 
ance of a Sunday sabbath, and to punish by civil penalties all who 
do any secular work on that day, it violates its own bill of rights 
as well as the Constitution of the United States, and the moral 
sense of the civilized world." So says Rev. E. T. Hiscox, D. D., 
Baptist.— W. A. C. 



77 

Dr. Sunderland would never indulge in it. The wicked- 
ness of robbery and murder depends not at all on the 
Decalogue or any command of any god. The moral law 
was established by human mecessity ten thousand years 
before Moses or Abraham was born or Adam manufac- 
tured ; it was " enacted " by the relations of primitive 
man, and there could have been no human society above 
savagery without its recognition and enforcement. 

I wish the Churchman's League would cease inflicting 
their home-made facts upon Dr. Sunderland. He is my 
especial preserve, and I don't intend to permit untrust- 
worthy and irresponsible poachers to go shooting over 
him ! 

Kindly alluding to me, Dr. Sunderland says : 

Now he is going in for opening the public libraries, 
museums, art galleries, monuments, &c, on the Sabbath. 
If he carries that measure through, what shall hinder 
us from holding religious services in those places on that 
day? 

Nothing except the severe laws, which always protect 
them against noisy intruders. Beware, lest at any time 
the janitor shall deliver thee to the cop, the cop deliver 
thee to the judge, the judge deliver thee to the bailiff, 
and thou be cast into quod. To have my friend and 
brother immured in an uncomfortable dungeon for ex- 
cess of zeal would afflict me sore. 

As to why the Almighty was denied the hospitality 
of the Constitution : In 1789 the Presbytery of the East- 
ward convened at Newburyport, Mass., and wrote an open 
letter to President George Washington, in which they 
said: 



78 

"We should not have been alone in rejoicing to have 
seen some explicit Acknowledgment of the Only True 
God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent, inserted 
somewhere in the Magna Charta of our country. 

Washington at once replied (see Columbian Centinel, 
December 5, 1789,) as follows : 

Here I am persuaded you will permit me to observe 
that the path of true piety is so plain as to require little 
political direction. To this consideration we ought to 
ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion 
from the Magna Charta of our country. To the guidance 
of ministers of the Gospel this important object is per- 
haps more properly committed. I pray the munificent 
rewarder of virtue that your agency in this work may re- 
ceive its compensation here and hereafter. 

George Washington. 

A pious appeal to them to attend strictly to their own 
affairs ! 

There was a reason for all omitting the name of God. 

" King George the Third," says Buckle, " paid a court 
to the clergy, to which, since the death of Anne, they had 
been unaccustomed, * * * and therefore they zeal- 
ously aided him in every attempt to oppress the Amer- 
ican colonies." 

" The clergy are astonishingly warm in the war," wrote 
Burke to Fox, in 1778, " and what the Tories are when 
united with their natural head, the crown, and animated 
by their clergy, no man knows better than yourself." 

So it happened that when Americans declared that 
" governments derive their just power from the consent 
of the governed," and vindicated that declaration, they 
permanently retired two august personages from active 



79 

participation in politics — I allude, of course, to God and 
bis Vice-Regent, George III. In 1776 they, as our law- 
makers, lost their authority forever. 

In a little while Sunday will be wholly a day of rest 
and recreation ; chaplains will be abolished from army, 
navy, and Congress as a useless expense, and made to 
earn their own living ; theological charities will be sup- 
ported entirely by voluntary contributions ; all church 
property will be taxed ; public-school children will not 
be kept from their lessons four days in succession be- 
cause one happens to be Good Friday and the other 
Easter Monday, and all religious ceremonies, instead of 
being inflicted on the state, will be left exclusively in the 
hands of the ministers of the gospel, to whom, as 
Washington remarked, they are " perhaps more properly 
committed." 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



XX. 
DR. SUNDERLAND REPLIES. 

Editor Post : When a man likens one thing to an- 
other, is it contrast or comparison ? 

So, then, they did order the Bibles! No amount of 
soap can wash that out. If there was then a scarcity of 
Bibles (the more's the pity) there are plenty of them 
now. In spite of derision and obloquy they are daily 
increasing. Is that fact deplored by the " Secular 
League " ? 



80 

The story of the " thrilling scene " in the convention 
still remains (E. C. McGuire's book, pp. 149-153 ;• also 
Morris' book, pp. 249-253). The business of the con- 
vention was about to fail. Franklin made his speech, 
ending with a motion for prayers in the future. It was 
seconded by Sherman, and debated by Hamilton, Wil- 
liamson, and others, in the midst of which Randolph 
made a different motion, on which no vote was taken, 
and they at length adjourned. Madison's Debates are 
mere abstracts, and not full reports. Years after, Frank- 
lin said only three or four thought prayers necessary, 
evidently meaning that only three or four spoke in favor 
of prayers. This has nothing to do with the vote on 
his motion, which was carried, with only one negative, 
and the subsequent sessions were opened with prayer. 
Yet my friend says "there were no prayers"! How 
does he know ! It must be by some process of transmi- 
gration (metempsychosis, I think they call it) that he 
himself was present and knew all about it. But neither 
Madison nor Franklin denies that a vote was taken on 
Franklin's motion, with the result before stated. 

He finally admits that our government is founded on 
the "All-Reason." God only is the "All-Reason" and the 
author of the Christian religion. He is referred to in 
the Declaration of Independence. If this be so, what is 
my friend contending for ? He says this government is 
the people's government. And who are the people? 
They are men who, according to the Declaration, have 
been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 
rights. But their Creator has never given them the 
right to deny His existence, defy His laws, reject His 
word, profane His Sabbath, and set up a purely secular 



81 

government, having no relation to His divine govern- 
ment, and owing no allegiance to His divine authority. 

Yet, if I understand it, this is the doctrine of the 
Secular League. In their creed the terms "piety" and 
"impiety" are not known. It is a system fit only for our 
lower animal nature. Hence they call for a secular holi- 
day instead of a Christian Sabbath, for a day of animal 
divertisement, such as we find at the "Zoo," and not a 
day for men endowed with immortal powers and such 
inalienable rights as do not conflict with their Creator's 
rights. In short, they deny that our government has 
any right to enforce any divine command, which is an 
absurdity in terms. They utterly ignore the question 
of religion, and relegate it to the church and Sabbath- 
school. Yes, and while we at our end are trying to im- 
bue the generation with piety and reverence for God 
and His commandments, the Secular League, at the 
other end, is doing what it may to outroot them. 

The real question is, are our existing Sunday laws con- 
stitutional ? My friend says no, and demands their repeal. 
He predicts the wiping out of all traces of the Christian 
religion in every shape and form, so far as our govern- 
ment is concerned. To do this he must destroy the re- 
corded opinions of all the great characters of the past ; 
he must burn all the provincial constitutions and laws, 
all the State constitutions, statutes, documents, procla- 
mations, treaties, and correspondence, and with rare ex- 
ceptions all the decisions of all the courts — even that so 
late as April 27, 1891, when the decision of an inferior 
court in Texas rendered on the Sabbath was for that 
very reason declared void by the Supreme Court of the 
United States, while as late as February 9, 1892, the same 



82 

great court declared* this to be "a Christian nation." It 
will be a mighty overturn when " modern secularism" 
shall succeed in changing our Christian laws, institu- 
tions, and customs! Quid post diluvium f 

The reason for leaving the word "God" out of the 
Constitution assigned by my friend is amusing, since in 
the Declaration, a few years before, God is fully recog- 
nized as the author of all human rights, and even human 
existence. Hamilton ascribed it to inadvertence. It 
was in the Declaration. Repetition would have been 
only a pleonasm. 

B. SUNDERLAND. 



XXI. 
DR. CROFFUT REPLIES. 

Editor Post : Most people cherish one day of rest be- 
cause it is salutary. Enough will continue to do so with- 
out the aid of policemen. With St. Paul,' Luther, and 
Milton, I say : Let every man who wants a religious 
Sabbath have one, but let him celebrate it in such a way 
as not to interfere with anybody else. 

My friend, Dr. Sunderland, doubted that any Ameri- 
can colony had compelled people to go to church on Sun- 
day. I immediately quoted two severe Virginia laws to 
that effect. Connecticut had similar laws, for my own 

* This assertion is erroneous. The Supreme Court in the Trinity 
Church case did not decide that this is a Christian nation, but 
only that a good many people have held it to be a Christian na- 
tion — which is quite a different declaration. — W. A. C. 



83 

father was there arrested in my presence for going on a 
visit to his mother on Sunday instead of going to church. 
I now* quote Massachusetts : In the General Laws, vol. 
I, page 410, is another of these beautiful ecclesiastical 
goads (1692), which reads, word for word,| as follows : 

Whereas the observation of the Sunday is an affair of public in- 
terest; inasmuch as it produces a necessary suspension of Labour, 
leads men to reflect upon the duties of life and the errors to which 
Human Nature is liable, and provides for the public and private 
Worship of God the Creator and Governor of the Universe, and 
for the performance of such acts of charity as are the ornament 
and comfort of Christian Societies, and 

Whereas, irreligious or light-minded Persons, forgetting the 
duties which the Sabbath imposes, and the benefits which these 
duties confer on society, are known to profane its Sanctity, by fol- 
lowing their Pleasures or their affairs; this way of acting being 
contrary to their own interest as Christians, and calculated to an- 
noy those who do not follow their Example ; being also of great 
injury to society at large, by spreading a taste for Dissipation and 
dissolute Manners, 

Be it enacted and ordained by the governor, council, and repre- 
sentatives convened in general court of assembly, that all and every 
Person and Persons shall, on that day, carefully apply themselves 

♦Lecky says : "At the close of the seventeenth century ' travel, 
play, and work on the Lord's day ' were prohibited in Massachu- 
setts by law ; and injunctions were given to constables ' to restrain 
all persons from swimming in the waters, unnecessary and unrea- 
sonable walking in the streets or fields of the town of Boston or 
other places, keeping open their shops, or following their secular 
occupations or recreations in the evening preceding the Lord's Day, 
or any part of the said day or evening following.' " — England in 
the XVIlIth century ; vol. II. p. 19. 

This seems to cover the ground. — W. A. C. 

1 1 have here copied in full the law of which, in The Post, only 
an abstract was given. — W. A. C. 



84 

to the duties of Religion and Piety ; that no tradesman or laborer 
shall exercise his ordinary calling, and that no Game or Recre- 
ation shall be used on the Lord's Day, upon pain of forfeiting ten 
shillings ($2.50). 

That no one shall Travel on that Day, or any part thereof, un- 
der pain of forfeiting twenty shillings ($5.00) ; — that no vessel 
shall leave a Harbour of the Colony ; that no Persons shall keep 
Outside the Meetinghouse during the time of Public Worship, or 
profane the time by playing or talking, on penalty of five shil- 
lings ($1.25) ; 

Public Houses shall not entertain any other than Strangers or 
Lodgers, under a penalty of five shillings ; 

Any person in Health who, without sufficient reason, shall omit 
to Worship God in Public during three months, shall be condemned 
to a fine of ten shillings ; 

Any person guilty of misbehaviour in a place of Public Worship 
shall be fined from five to forty shillings. 

These laws are to be enforced by the tithing-men of each Town- 
ship, who have authority to visit public houses on the Sunday. 
The innkeeper who shall refuse them admittance shall be fined 
forty shillings for such offence. 

The tithing-men are to stop Travellers, and to require of them 
their Reason for being on the Road on Sunday : — any one refusing 
to answer shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not exceeding five 
pounds sterling ($25.00;. If the Reason given by the Traveller 
be not deemed by the tithing-men sufficient, he may bring the 
traveller before the Justice of the Peace of the district. 

In 1797 a new law of the Legislature increased these 
fines and gave half of the money to the informer, and 
even as late as 1816 the measures were confirmed and 
re-enacted. 

John Calvin and Melancthon would have rejoiced at 
these laws, as they did at the burning alive of Servetus, 
because they differed with him about the Trinity — he 
thinking that God, the Father, must be somewhat older 
than his Son. 



85 

Brother Sunderland declares that " the Bible is to-day 
the book of common law in all our courts." This state- 
ment has created a good deal of amusement in "all our 
courts," and there seems to be a general desire that some- 
body shall come into court armed only with the Bible 
and conduct a case ! 

Dr. Sunderland adds: "On it the oath is taken." 
Sometimes, brother, but not often. In four-fifths of all 
the courts of America no Bible is ever seen, and in none 
of them is any oath required ; a simple affirmation suf- 
fices. 

Catholics believe in treating Sunday rationally. I have 
seen Catholic priests in this country playing ball on Sun- 
day. Cardinal Gibbons has written : 

You may read the Bible from Genesis to Bevelation 
and you will not find a single line authorizing the sancti- 
fication of Sunday. 

Cardinal McCloskey has said : 

Had not the Catholic church such power she could not 
have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day 
of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh 
day of the week, a change for which there is no script- 
ural authority. 

But Dr. Sunderland's acolytes should remember what 
Episcopalians have said about Sunday. Henry Alford, 
the eminent Dean of Canterbury, wrote: 

The obvious inference is that Paul knew of no divine 
obligation of one day in seven, but believed all times and 
days to be alike to the Christian. I infer that Sabbati- 
cal obligation to keep any day, whether seventh or first, 
was not recognized in apostolic times. 



86 

And a greater Episcopalian than Dean Alford, Rev. 
Frederick Robertson, has written : 

I must reverse all my conceptions of Christianity be- 
fore I can believe that Mr. may, without infringe- 
ment of the fourth commandment, drive his carriage to 
church twice every Sunday, but the poor man may not 
drive his cart ; that the two or three hours spent by a 
noble lord over venison, champagne, dessert, and coffee 
are no desecration of the command, but the same time 
spent by an artisan over cheese and beer in a tea garden 
will bring down God's judgment on the land. It is the 
spirit of Phariseeism which our Lord rebuked so sternly. 

All this is from Brother Sunderland's point of view — 
not mine; he may, therefore, consider it. 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



XXII. 

(Wednesday, April 15.) 
DR. SUNDERLAND'S LAST REPLY. 

Editor Post : My good friend, Dr. Croffut, appears to 
be in mortal terror of being compelled to go to church 
when he wishes to be somewhere else — in Metzerott 
Hall, on a steamboat, in a buggy, or out at some play- 
ground with the priests playing ball Sunday. 

We have heretofore been discussing the Bible au- 
thority of the Sabbath institution. My friend started 
out with the proposition that there is no such authority. 
After a while he abandoned that phase of the question 
and left it to be settled among ourselves. He now re- 



87 

turns to it by citing a few meager excerpts from Gib- 
bons, McCloskey, Dean Alford, Robertson, and others, 
expressing their individual opinion, which is of no 
earthly consequence in view of the facts of the case. 
Why, if he wants dogma merely, I will refer him to 
Coxe's " Literature of the Sabbath," where he will find 
no end of it. The book is in the Congressional Library. 

The point I made as to colonial laws was that my 
friend insisted they compelled u every person" to go to 
church. The Virginia statutes he cited did not show 
this. I reminded him of the still more rigorous church 
discipline in the Eastern colonies. I'm sorry for the 
arrest of his father before his very eyes ! Probably he 
was a church-member and they unceremoniously scooped 
him up.* I cannot account for it in any other way. I 
confess it was hard usage anyhow. I don't see the 
reason of my friend's animus toward Calvin. I thought 
he approved of Calvin's playing " tenpins " on Sunday. 
The doctrine of the Trinity is a side issue in this dis- 
cussion. Brother Croffut is apt to bring in side issues. 
He has loaded down the debate with a number of them, 
and after a while discarded them all as " non-essentials." 

The following is Bancroft's opinion of Calvin : 

The genius of Calvin infused enduring elements into 
the institutions of Geneva, and made it for the modern 
world the impregnable fortress of popular liberty, the 
fertile seed-plot of democracy. He that will not honor 
the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows 
t>ut little of the origin of American liberty. 

If my friend will recur to my letter, the last in The 
Post prior to this dual discussion, he will find an account 

*My father was never a church member. — W. A. C. 



88 

of the Servetus controversy which I believe to be in 
strict accordance with the truth. 

My friend spoke of my " acolytes," and says, " all this 
is from Brother Sunderland's point of view — not mine." 
I fear my friend is getting somewhat muddled as to 
what the real " point of view " is. He cannot have for- 
gotten my distinct statement that I am presenting my 
own views on the Sunday question, and no other man's. 
Why he should seek to thrust the opinions of " acolytes " 
on me I do not understand, unless he is running short 
of legitimate argument. I have no " acolytes." 

Wherever the oath is taken in court it is on the Bible. 
This is all I have affirmed. The Bible is frequently re- 
ferred to in the trial of suits as the book of common law.* 
My impression is that it is so regarded by the legal pro- 
fession. I may be wrong in this. Over and over I have 
seen juries and witnesses in our courts here sworn on 
the Bible. How it is in the country at large I am not 
informed. My friend's sweeping statement would seem 
to need verification. 

There are two phases of the Sabbath question: — 

1. The divine authority of the Sabbatic institution. 

2. The manner of its observance in our times. On this 
latter point there is a great deal to be said, and of which 
I have, as yet, said but little. It is a broad subject, 
requiring the largest wisdom and the profoundest faith 
in God to know how to deal with it. 

I am not anxious to close this discussion, but if it is 
to be closed here let me say The Post has been singu- 
larly generous and impartial. Many things I would 

* ! ! !— W. A. C. 



89 

have noticed have been excluded for want of space. I 
will revert only to one point. My friend said Congress 
refused charters to local churches. Being advised that 
Congress had chartered our church, he becomes ominous 
with thunderbolts of protest unless we pay our church 
taxes, &c. Now, if we take that trip together this sum- 
mer, I hope no prior undue excitement will unfit him 
for the voyage. My friend, I beg you, don't do it. Don't 
burst off any buttons. Don't ring the fire-bell or the 
fog-bell before the time. Let us be calm. We profess 
to be a law-abiding people. Let the case be made up, and 
let the Supreme Court decide it. If we must pay taxes 
without representation, or if the cops will snake us out 
of the Library for preaching there on Sunday, then " a 
new thing under the sun " will usher in the twentieth 
century. 

Now, my good friend, I want to say that not a bitter 
word causing me pain have you written. Tou have been 
frisky, of course, as it is your nature to be. I think you 
are by far the smartest man in the u Secular League." 
I also hope I have uot wounded your feelings, as I surely 
never meant to do. The only sorrow I have is that we 
do not seem to see religious things alike. God knows 
our hearts. May He dispose us ever to seek and follow 
the right. Now, for a season, good-bye. 

B. SUNDEKLAND. 



90 



{Friday, April 17. ) 

XXIII. 

GOOD-BYE FROM DR. CEOFFUT. 

Editor Post : An almost universal howl goes up, de- 
manding the termination of this discussion. I do not 
wonder. The average reader is an epicure, constantly 
requiring delicacies. Since learning that these letters 
have crowded out the thrilling details of a human con- 
flagration in Texas, of an awkward hanging in Montreal, 
of an overlooked garment of Mrs. Dimmick, of an excru- 
ciating triple suicide in Harlem, of the consumption of 
two infants by a hog in Detroit, and of a most interest- 
ing dog fight in Schott's alley, I have felt quite ashamed 
of having wasted so much space on a merely serious sub- 
ject. My good friend and collaborator, Dr. Sunderland, 
undoubtedly feels the same way. Our readers have ex- 
hibited most commendable patience. 

It is obvious that the time has come when the most 
sacred and most exasperating questions known to human 
life can be freely, frankly, rationally, and boldly discussed 
without exciting private hostility or public alarm, with- 
out descending to offensive dogmatism, and without end- 
ing in vituperation, like the "friendly talk" of Rev. 
Nehemiah Holdenough and Dr. Rochecliffe in Scott's 
" Woodstock." And if the First Presbyterian Church 
doesn't send Dr. Sunderland to Rome with my party this 
summer it does not deserve ever to have a faithful, in- 
dustrious, and self-denying pastor again. 

One or two points require a word, when I shall per- 
manently withdraw and push Dr. Sunderland in front of 



91 

the curtain to finish the salaam begun by him on Wed- 
nesday. Brother Sunderland remarks : 

While we at our end are trying to imbue the genera- 
tion with piety and reverence for God and His Command- 
ments, the Secular League, at the other end, is doing 
what it may to outroot them. 

This is pretty nearly correct, but not quite. A few of 
the Secular League are Christians. Of all the others, 
probably, the above estimate is true. They have, after 
serious and diligent search, failed to ascertain anything 
about the being whom Brother Sunderland calls God, 
and so they do not even pretend to worship him ; they 
think they spend their time more profitably in studying 
man's relation to his fellow-men. If there is a God, no 
man can either help or harm him ; but every man can 
help or harm his parents, his brother, his sister, his wife, 
his child, his friend, his neighbor. We can be useful to 
other human beings and they can be useful to us, but 
there can be no reciprocal assistance, so far as we are 
aware, between us and the unknowable. Love is too 
valuable to waste on any emotional figment. Such a 
God as the Jews were afflicted with we would not wor- 
ship, even if we knew he existed. If there is a God any- 
where who is just and humane, we will give him appro- 
priate recognition when we find him. 

Dr. Sunderland is correct in saying that the Secular 
League has no use for the words "piety" and "impiety." 
The words it has special use for are " honesty," " up- 
rightness," "justice," "generosity," "equity," "amity," 
and "liberty," and even in these respects they are "mis- 
erable sinners." But they try to do those things which 
they ought to have done and leave undone those things 
which they ought not to have done, and they earnestly 



92 

disapprove of intolerance and bigotry, even when they 
themselves are guilty. And they rejoice at the rapid 
progress which mental emancipation is making in 
America. I may add that the Secular League greatly 
desires to gain real information about God, and to that 
end it invites all the clergymen of Washington to accept 
the courteous hospitality of its platform any Sunday at 
3 P. M., assuring every guest that he shall have his pro- 
portion of the time, and for his remarks respectful con- 
sideration. But the League wants facts — notdreams or 
rumors or guesses. 

I am surprised that Dr. Sunderland thinks that God 
is mentioned in the second paragraph of the Declaration 
of Independence. It is the "Creator" that is mentioned 
there. Probably the men who wrote it thought that this 
"Creator" was the God whom Brother Sunderland talks 
about ; but Science has demonstrated that Environment 
and Heredity is the only creator — that they, or, rather, 
it, is the creator of man and all his works. Environ- 
ment and Heredity are, or, rather, is, two in one — a 
biune god — each being equal to both — the Doctor will 
understand this — and so it is that Jefferson builded 
wiser than he knew and told a great and splendid truth 
when he thought he was merely falling in with a harm- 
less fashion. 

Au revoir to the readers of The JPost, and thanks to its 
generous editor, and for my amiable friend who has not 
misunderstood my little jokes, my cordial regards. 

W. A. CKOFFUT. 

[Dr. Sunderland generously declined the opportunity 
offered him to close the discussion, and the above letter 
was the last.] 



93 



HISTOKY OF THE SABBATH. 

There are traditions found recorded in ancient books 
that before the Abrahamic period it was customary in 
some parts of the world to abstain from work periodi- 
cally — sometimes every seventh day ; but the observance 
of Saturday as a day of rest and worship first appears 
distinctly among the Israelites after the exodus from 
Egypt. Then Moses brought down from the mountain 
and issued to the people the command, " Remember the 
Sabbath day and keep it holy" — the word "remember" 
seeming to indicate that this was an enforcement of an 
old Gentile or Egyptian custom. Then, too, the author 
of this fourth commandment, though he permits the 
streams to flow and the winds to blow every day in the 
week, made feeding the Israelites an exception, not per- 
mitting any manna to fall from the sky on the seventh 
day. 

In Exodus, chapter xxxi, we read: "And the Lord 
spake unto Moses, saying : * * * Whosoever doeth 
any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to 
death." This injunction was actually obeyed, and men 
were assassinated for picking up wood on Saturday. 

The reason given why the Sabbath should be wholly 
devoted to honoring God was that in creating and equip- 
ping this planet and " the stars also " he had rested on 
the seventh day, but it was also alleged that it was kept 
because God had emancipated the Israelites in Egypt. 

Joshua did not pause in his aggressive wars and sieges 
on that day ; but after Nehemiah the Sabbath was so 



94 

closely observed that for more than a century the people 
and soldiers of Jerusalem refused to defend the city 
when it was attacked on Saturday, but left its defence 
entirely to the Lord. The result was that it was re- 
peatedly captured by small armies of Ptolemy, Antiochus, 
Herod, Pompey, and Titus, who climbed over the walls 
on Saturday and in some instances took the citadel and 
the temple without losing a man. 

Turning to the New Testament, we find that Jesus 
never enjoined the observance of the Sabbath as a moral 
duty in any form or on any day. He not only violated 
the Sabbath himself, but commanded others to violate 
it. Indeed his disrespect 'for the Sabbath was one of the 
causes which led to his being lynched, for we read (John 
v, 16) : "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and 
sought to slay him, because he had done these things on 
the Sabbath day." And Paul followed the example of 
his chief, for he said (Colossians ii, 16), "Let no man 
therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of 
a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days." 

In the Eastern Christian churches Saturday continued 
to be observed as the Sabbath till the fifth century, and 
the practice still prevails throughout the great Christian 
church of Abyssinia, — perhaps the oldest in the world — 
which " keeps " Saturday. Justin (Martyr) , in the second 
century, says that the new sect called Christians some- 
times met on Sunday, but they " kept " Saturday, at least 
as strictly as Paul and Jesus did, and their Sunday as- 
semblings were probably for business and social pur- 
poses. Indeed, in sharp contrast with the command- 
ment to keep Saturday because the Lord rested on that 
day, Justin says the Christians began to meet on Sunday 






95 

because the Lord did not rest on that day, but worked 
without cessation and " created the heaven and the earth.'' 
As a matter of fact, during several centuries after 
Christ there was no such thing as a Christian Sabbath. 
Christians rested and worshiped on no particular day. 
Some churches met on Sunday, some on Wednesday, 
some on Friday, and some on Saturday. Mosheim, in 
his " Ecclesiastical History " (pt. II, chap, i), says : 

" Many also observed the fourth day of the week, on 
which Christ was betrayed ; and the sixth, which was the 
day of the crucifixion." 

Kev. Dr. Heylyn, in his " History of the Sabbath " (pt. 
II, chap, iii), says : 

"The Sunday in the Eastern churches had no great 
prerogative above other days, especially above the 
Wednesday and the Friday." 

Sunday was not generally regarded and kept as the 
" Sabbath" till the famous edict of the Emperor Con- 
stantine, March 7, 321, began to be enforced by his offi- 
cers. That edict is as follows : 

" Let all the judges and townspeople and the occupa- 
tion of all trades rest on the venerable day of the Sun ; 
but let those who are situated in the country freely and 
at full liberty attend to the business of agriculture — be- 
cause it often happens that no other day is so fit for sow- 
ing corn and planting vines — lest the critical moment 
being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted 
by Heaven." 

Of the character of this Christian emperor there are 
no two opinions. It is fairly summed up by Col. John 
E. Remsburg : 



96 

" A man who deluged the Koman Empire with blood ; 
a man who threw his captives to wild beasts ; a man who 
killed the husband of his sister and the father of his wife ; 
a man who tore his nephew, a little boy of eleven years, 
from the arms of a pleading sister, and murdered him ; 
a man who plunged his own wife into a bath of boiling 
water ; a man who consigned to a cruel death his own in- 
nocent son. All of these crimes were committed, not 
while he was yet a Pagan, but after he had embraced the 
Christian faith." 

After this, for centuries, Sunday-breaking, like all other 
heresies, was extirpated with the rack, dungeon and torch. 

In 386 a law of the Koman Empire was passed declar- 
ing all transgressors of Sunday to be guilty of sacrilege. 
Forty years later a law was passed forbidding circus ex- 
hibitions on Sunday, " in order that the devotions of the 
faithful may be free from all disturbance." 

The curse of God was added to the cruelties of men 
to protect the holiness of the first day of the week. In 
1201 St. Eustace appeared with a parchment, purport- 
ing to be a proclamation written by God in heaven and 
laid upon the altar of St. Simeon in Jerusalem. Chris- 
tian prelates pronounced the document genuine, and 
Innocent III gave it the papal sanction. Among other 
things, this divine decree contained the following : 

" By my right hand I swear unto you, that if you do 
not observe the Lord's day, and the festivals of my 
saints, I will send unto you the Pagan nations, that they 
may slay you. 

"I- will open the heavens, and for rain I will rain upon 
you stones, and wood, and hot water, in the night, that 
no one may take precautions against the same, and that 
so I may destroy all wicked men. 

" I will send unto you beasts that have the heads of 



97 

lions, the hair of women, the tails of camels, and they 
shall be so ravenous that they shall devour your flesh, 
and you shall long to flee away and hide yourselves for 
fear of the beasts." 

To aid in the enforcement of the universal worship of 
God on Sunda}', numerous well-attested miracles were 
announced. A man going to plow on Sunday was im- 
movably fixed to that implement and could not let go 
of it for two years. A miller starting his wheels on Sun- 
day ground out blood instead of flour. No dough could 
be made to bake on Sunday, however hot the fire. Men 
who went to walk on Sunday, and ungodly boys who 
went to play, were struck dead in their tracks. An Eng- 
lish monk even declared that fish would not bite " on 
that holy day." 

In England Henry VIII found time between wives to 
enforce the pious observance of " the Christian Sab- 
bath " by most stringent penalties. 

The next enactment to enforce Sunday observance 
was by James I of England, who had the present ver- 
sion of the Bible translated. He was one of the most 
vicious men that ever sat on the throne of England. 
The American Encyclopedia says of him : " He early ex- 
hibited that fondness for masculine favorites which left 
a cloud upon his name. His death was caused by a ter- 
tian ague, acting upon a constitution that was under- 
mined by intemperance." 

The laws in Great Britain that relate to Sunday ob- 
servance, and upon which the laws in the United States 
for the same purpose have been based, were enacted by 
Charles II, in 1661 and 1663. Of him Chambers's Ency- 
clopedia says: " His life was most dissolute; his adul- 



98 

teries and the profligacy of his court are scarcely par- 
alleled in British history." 

Great Britain enforced a rigid observance of "the 
Lord's Day." It was made a crime to work or play at 
all between Saturday and Monday. It was declared a 
sin to cook or kindle a fire. A husband was not per- 
mitted to kiss his wife or a mother her child. Many 
were persecuted and put to death by the Protestants of 
England for arguing that Saturday was the true Lord's 
Day. In 1661, for rejecting the Puritan Sabbath, John 
James, a Baptist clergyman, was hanged and quartered. 
"After he was dead his heart was taken out and burned, 
his quarters were affixed to the gates of the city, and his 
head was set up in Whitechapel on a pole opposite to the 
alley in which his meeting-house stood." 

In Scotland it was a sin to smile on Sunday, and his- 
tory tells us that when Charles I visited his northern 
realm he was publicly rebuked by the clergy for ventur- 
ing to laugh on that day. A party of humane landsmen 
who went into the surf and saved shipwrecked mariners 
on Sunday were compelled to make public confession of 
their sin in thus violating the Sabbath day. 

In America it was the same. In Boston an iron cage 
was set in the public square where all Sabbath-breakers 
were confined and exhibited. But such an exposure was 
not deemed sufficient punishment. "Three Quaker 
women were arrested for some trivial offense and con- 
victed of Sabbath-breaking. This was their punish- 
ment : On a cold December day they were taken out, 
stripped to the waist, tied behind a cart, and publicly 
whipped through the streets of Boston and Roxbury, the 



99 

snow over which they passed being stained with the drops 
of blood that fell from their lacerated bodies."* 

In the public archives of Worcester, Mass., one Mary 
Pay stands convicted of Sabbath breaking. The testi- 
mony shows the extent of her guilt. Late one Saturday 
night she heard that her married daughter, living at a 
distance, was taken suddenly ill. Next morning she 
hastened to her side on horseback. She was arrested, 
tried, convicted of violating the Lord's day, and com- 
pelled to pay $300 to keep out of jail ! 

The recent history of " the Sabbath " is too familiar 
to need recapitulation; but it should be remembered 
that some of the best citizens of North Carolina, Virginia, 
and Kentucky are thrust in jail every year for the crime 
of resting on Saturday instead of on Sunday. 

* 4i Sabbath-breaking," by John E. Remsburg, p. 47. 



NO NEED OF STRICTER LAWS. 



Washington is a Model City in Sunday 
Observance. 



{From the Washington Post, March 17, 1896.) 

The District Commissioners reported yesterday the 
much-discussed Sunday bill, which is too radical for 
their approval. They say the provision in the bill mak- 
ing it unlawful to perform any labor, except works of 
necessity and mercy, would make a radical change in 
the laws of the District. 

" Strictly constituted," they continue, "it would pre- 
vent the hiring of bicycles or cabs, deliveries of milk 
and ice, the sale of mineral waters, Sunday papers ; pre- 
vent Sunday work on Monday newspapers ; the running 
of street cars, steamboats, hiring of horses or vehicles^ 
the sale of railroad tickets, the use of telephones, &c. 

" The Commissioners are not aware of any demand 
for the enactment of such legislation among the citizens 
of the District. Under the existing laws the first day of 
the week is recognized as a day of rest ; scenes of dis- 
order on that day are almost unknown*; the sale of 
liquor does not prevail, and no city in the United States 
can show a better record, so far as the peaceful and or- 
derly observance of Sunday is concerned." They there- 
fore recommend that this bill be not passed. 

♦Nine months later the same Commissioners, Truesdell, Ross 
and Powell, passed the order outlined on the next page. — W. A. C. 



THEY MUST SELL IN SILENCE. 



Newsboys Forbidden to Cry Papers on 
Sunday in Washington. 



{From the Washington Post, January 1, 1897.) 

Thirty days from to-day, unless the Corninissioners 
should revoke their order, it will be an offense for a 
newsboy to cry a Sunday newspaper for sale on the 
streets of the National Capital. The Commissioners yes- 
terday so amended the police regulations that after Feb- 
ruary 1, if a newsboy should raise his voice on Sunday 
to effect the sale of a newspaper, he will be liable to a 
fine of five or more hard-earned dollars in the Police 
Court. 

He will still be permitted to appear on the streets and 
silently expose his papers for sale, but he must not tell 
anybody his business much above a whisper, for it will 
cost him a " five r if he lets off one of those old-time yells. 
If the newsboy should invent anything to attract atten- 
tion in place of his familiar call, which has been tolerated 
for ages, he is also liable to arrest. 

[On this occasion there appeared before the Commis- 
sioners for the restraining order several clergymen of 
Washington, without any lay support whatever : and 
against it General Birney, D. "W. Groh, Mr. Croffut, J. 
AY. Adams, Baldwin Johnson, and H. M. Taylor, of the 
Secular League.] 



102 



DR. CROFFUT'S REMARKS ABOUT IT. 

Editor Post : The preachers of Washington have se- 
cured the issue of a police order forbidding newsboys to 
cry papers on the streets at any time on Sunday. Will 
the Commissioners enforce such a cruel and heartless 
order? Will the police, at the instance of ministers, 
arrest and send to jail the poor, ragged, and industrious 
boys who try to support themselves by selling their read- 
able wares'? Would it not be a most ironical comment 
on the benefits of Christianity? Is not the Sunday news- 
paper a chief promoter of intelligence and enforcer of 
morality ? 

I do not affirm that it is an ally of the church. Revs. 
Butler and Ennis evidently think it is not, for, otherwise, 
they would not attempt to suppress it any more than 
they try to suppress the noisy Salvation Army, or the 
rackety street cars which bring folks to hear their ser- 
mons. 

To be sure, it publishes far more religious matter than 
the preachers do. There were, perhaps, 20,000 church- 
goers in Washington last Sunday. But there were 
100,000 newspaper readers that day here; and if the 
columns of the newspapers that were read in Washing- 
ton last Sunday had been placed end to end they would 
have reached from here to New York, and if the words 
had all been ranged in one line it would have extended 
to Persia. They contained more than 1,000 times as 
much as all the sermons. But the crusade against the 
poor newsboy proves that Rev. Ennis and Rev. Butler 



103 

think the Sunday newspaper is not an ally of the church ; 
and I am inclined to agree with them. 

What right have ministers to demand that they shall 
have an exclusive right to do business and vociferate on 
Sunday? — that they alone shall have the privilege of 
working for pay on one day out of seven ! Have they 
any standing that entitles them to ask special protection"? 
Do they not now travel on half fare, like children ? Do 
they not secure exemption from taxation for their places 
of business ? 

In this District alone there is not less than ten million 
dollars' ($10,000,000) worth of church property that pays 
no taxes. Every Agnostic is unjustly taxed because of 
this exemption. Every workingruan's dinner is more 
meager and his family's wardrobe more scanty because 
he must pay and does pay the taxes on this church 
property. 

And now, forsooth, the respectable parsons, who accept 
the " call of the Spirit " where the highest salary is paid, 
undertake to prevent the penniless orphans of society 
from making an honest living ! Is it possible that such 
an unjust and oppressive order can be enforced ? 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



(From the Washington Post, January 3.) 

EDITORIAL COMMENTS. 

As to Mr. W. A. Croffut's protest against the police 
order forbidding newsboys to cry papers on the streets 
on Sunday, we agree to much that he says, but are not 
disposed to follow him altogether. We do not recognize 



104 

in this movement an attempt to prohibit the sale of Sun- 
day newspapers, though it may be that such an attempt 
will logically follow later on. When that second attempt 
is inaugurated it will be time to make battle on the lines 
laid down by Mr. Croffut, and no doubt The Post will be 
found somewhere in the front. 

Meanwhile, we are really at loss to know why this 
order was issued. There are moments when some of the 
boys seem to us to be unnecessarily vociferous in the 
pursuit of their avocation. There was a time when it 
struck us that their vociferation began a trifle early in 
the morning. But the particularly noisy boys are only 
individual offenders, for whose sins others need not be 
punished, and, as for the early-bird aspect of the case, 
the worm has already been sufficiently protected by the 
prohibition against the crying of newspapers, either 
noisily or otherwise, before seven in the morning.* Why, 
then, meddle further with an arrangement which seems 
considerate of all ? There are more people in this city 
who want newspapers on Sunday than there are people 
who do not want them. We venture to say that eight- 
tenths of the residents of Washington who know how 
to read and can afford to gratify that capacity devote a 
certain part of each Sunday to the secular literature in 
question. Reading newspapers does not draw men away 
from church. It does not detract from their Christianity. 
One may look over half a dozen newspapers and yet go to 
church if he wishes to. And even if the fact were other- 
wise, why should the District authorities interfere ? It 
is no business of theirs, at any rate. * * * The 
church made its fight against secular literature several 
centuries ago and lost it. 



* Or after ten in the morning. — W. A. C. 



105 



FIRING INTO THE BUSHES. 

Editor Post : U A Washington minister" who, without 
revealing his name, pays his respects to me in this morn- 
ing's .Post, does but follow his professional instincts by 
hiding in ambush when he hasn't a pulpit at hand, and 
by speaking only when the man he attacks is not per- 
mitted to talk back. A monolog is much more gratify- 
ing to vanity than a dialog. 

Avoiding any apology for the crusade which the clergy- 
men of Washington are making on the poor and indus- 
trious newsboys — an assault of which every minister who 
has any self-respect ought to be ashamed — he speaks 
about " Mr. Croffut's sudden zeal for the newsboys," and 
says that he and other Christians have built the News- 
boys' Home, furnished it, and supplied all the entertain- 
ments and all the dinners, Agnostics " never having 
given any aid to speak of, as far as we know." 

He is probably correct in saying that Agnostics have 
never given anything " to speak of." That would hardly 
be modest. But I happen to know of one Agnostic who 
has given to the Newsboys' Home all that he could 
afford to. He has contributed to the whole outfit more 
than one dinner. He has furnished several entertain- 
ments — perhaps not very brilliant affairs, but the best 
he had. 

Having got as near the facts as this, the gentleman in 
ambush advises me to come to the front and " subscribe 
liberally " for the newsboys' comfort. Having induced 
the Commissioners — Messrs. Boss and Truesdell — to 
forbid newsboys to cry Sunday newspapers at all, lest he 



106 

and his flock should be disturbed, he thereupon calls 
upon Agnostics to come forward and support the penni- 
less children whom he has deprived of the privilege of 
earning a living ! If I were dealing with a mere world- 
ling, I should call this " cheek." As I am dealing with 
one whose ostensible business it is to furnish mankind 
with a sense of justice and a system of morals, I merely 
designate it as immeasurable gall. I have in my mind 
a picture of Rev. Mr. Innominatus next Sunday handing 
a ragged newsboy over to the police and jail for adver- 
tising his wares, and then calling aloud for Agnostics to 
come and " subscribe liberally " to help the newsboys. 
What a cartoon it would make ! Where is Thomas Nast ? 
O, for an hour of Coffin ! 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



FOR AND AGAINST. 

Notwithstanding many remonstrances, the church kept 
busy. Twenty ministers of Washington held a meeting 
and unanimously approved of the suppression of the 
newsboys, and voted to " hold up the hands " of the 
Commissioners. 

The Secular League took vigorous action in denuncia- 
tion of the new order ; a great indignation meeting was 
held in Willard Hall, calling for the repeal of the order 
by the Commissioners ; and Dr. Croffut delivered before 
large and enthusiastic audiences seven lectures, illus- 
trated with lantern slides, for the benefit of the news- 
boys, raising a considerable fund to strengthen the treas- 
ury of the Newsboys' Club, and to furnish means of de- 



107 

fence for such as should be arrested. The earnest pro- 
tests caused the Commissioners to think a second time, 
and to issue such instructions as have made the " order' 7 
of New Years day pretty nearly a dead letter. Sunday 
papers have since been cried on the streets as usual and 
only five little " offenders " have been arrested. These 
have been fined $2 apiece and their fines have been paid 
out of the newsboys' fund. 



COKKECTING DK. MACKAY-SMITH. 

SXK 
Editor Post: Dr. Alexander Mackay-Smith, of the 

Episcopal Church, writes to you in a reasonable and 
kindly spirit in favor of suppressing newsboys' cries ; and 
he presents arguments which are so plausible that they 
are liable to mislead if not corrected. He, himself, in- 
deed, is entitled to know the exact facts in the case as 
far as he is in error. 

Dr. Mackay-Smith expresses the opinion that " just as 
many papers can be sold ?1 by mutes as by newsboys who 
state to wayfarers what they have to sell. In this he is 
mistaken. It is a matter of fact, not of conjecture. He 
can easily ascertain by inquiry that very many less papers 
are sold here every Sunday than were sold before Com- 
missioner Wight's cruel order was enforced. Will he 
give up his contention in favor of this order if it shall be 
demonstrated to his satisfaction that it does materially 
interfere with the earnings of these little merchants ! 
Or will he still demand that they be fined and sent to 
jail? 

Dr. Mackay-Smith remarks again : " Why should Wash- 



108 

ington be an exception to other great cities in the march 
of improvement? I am not sure, but I am tolcl that 
newsboys of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, and 
a hundred other places, are not allowed to shout their 
wares." This is not correct as to Philadelphia. 

It is true that in New York boys are not allowed 
to hawk papers on Sunday. The police order for- 
bidding it there was issued at the bidding of a syndicate 
of newsstand owners, who were rich enough to suppress 
the competition of the boys by getting Tammany's police 
justices to send them to jail. Do we want such a monop- 
oly in this city ? Do we need a newsstand Combine to 
swallow all the profits and compel the enterprising little 
fellows who now sell papers to give up their business 
and all go to blacking boots ? If I may inquire without 
offense, is this why Dr. Mackay-Smith is " President of 
the Board of Trustees of the Newsboys and Children's 
Aid Society"? Does he favor a newsstand Trust, which 
will deprive his humble proteges of the means of earning 
a living honestly 1 What is he going to do with them — 
or with the one-fiftieth of them who are in his Aid So- 
ciety — when their means of support is entirely taken 
away from them ? And will he then continue to call the 
institution of which he is an honored trustee an " Aid " 
Society ! 

It is depressing to see a man of Dr. Mackay-Smith's 
enlightened and liberal spirit ranged by the side of the 
narrow-minded advocates of the Puritan Sunday. It is 
not very long since his church celebrated " the Sabbath " 
in quite a different way. He says " Sunday as a rest day 
is demanded by all citizens." Very well ; but he knows 
that this is not the real reason for the arrest of the news- 



109 

boys. He knows that in ninety-nine cases out of every 
hundred where people are punished for " violating the 
Sabbath " there has been no disturbance of any citizen's 
rest. The " rest " theory is a mere pretext for enforcing 
a dogma of the church by the machinery of the state. 

The three boys caught on Sunday, October 24, were 
arrested and punished, not for disturbing anybody's rest, 
but for crying papers between 7.30 and 10 o'clock in the 
morning, before meetings had generally begun, and when 
citizens were eating breakfast. 

One of the prisoners, a w r hite boy, said to me, " My 
father is dead, sir, and my mother is in the hospital." 

Another, a colored boy, not higher than my table, said : 
" I was not hollering at all, for I knowed it was wrong to 
do so. But I seen a man stop and look at me acrost the 
street, an' 'sposin* he wanted to* buy, I jes' hel' up a 
paper an' said Post ? An* then he come over, an' wen I 
handed him the paper he grabs me, an' they said it was 
a cop in citizen's clothes." What does Brother Mackay- 
Smith think of this? 

Is he sure that the game is worth the candle ? Is he 
sure it will pay the churches to make war on the smallest, 
feeblest, and poorest, of our wage-earners ? Are there 
not in Washington enough real violators of the public 
peace and welfare who need the attention of the police ? 
There are pickpockets among us, and burglars — and 
gamblers — and forgers— and embezzlers — and murder- 
ers — felons who assail the rights of property and of life 
under every guise. Is it worth while to attack with the 
weapons of the law respectable little newsboys who are 
trying to be of service to the public, and to snatch from 
them their hard-earned money or throw them in jail for 



110 

the offense of not keeping Sunday, merely because God 
some thousands of years ago commanded Moses to kill 
everybody who did not keep Saturday ? 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



TALMAGE AND DARWIN. 

Editor Post : In Dr. Talmage's New Year's sermon, 
printed in The \Post, he remarked, in a generous sum- 
mary of benefits which the old year had conferred : 
" The Nineteenth Century has brought us many bless- 
ings * * * — Charles Darwin giving $25,000 to the 
Missionary Society ! " 

The authority for this statement was obvious enough. 
JEx pede Herculem. I see his ear-marks ! But, to verify 
the conclusion, I wrote at once to Darwin's friend, Mr. 
Herbert Spencer, and to Mr. Darwin's son and executor. 
Mr. Troughton, Mr. Spencer's secretary, writes to me as 
follows : 

" Mr. Herbert Spencer requests me to say that he has 
no knowledge of any such donation by Mr. Darwin, and 
does not in the least believe that he* made it." 



Mr. Darwin's son replies thus : 

" My father, Mr. Charles Darwin, did not, as a rule, 
subscribe to any missionary societies. For some years 
he used to subscribe £1 ($5) a year to a society in the 
Falkland Islands. He had been in these poor islands 
and was interested in them, and an old friend who was 
there with him asked him to subscribe. This is, no 



Ill 

doubt, the origin of Dr. Talmage's romance. I am my 
fathers executor. 

" Yours, faithfully, 

" W. E. Darwin." 

Of course, the erroneous statement will not be cor- 
rected, either in the First Presbyterian pulpit or in any 
of the pulpits where it has since been proclaimed, for 
such stories never are. All that can be done in the in- 
terest of truth is to brand it in a free press as belong- 
ing to Dr. Talmage's kind of facts. 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



SUICIDE AND DISBELIEF. 

Editor Post : What curious coincidences there are in 
this world ! For instance : On Sunday Rev. Dr. Tal- 
mage preached a sermon on suicide, in which he de- 
clared that all the sane suicides in the world had been 
caused by disbelief in the Bible. He added (I quote 
from Monday's Post) : 

"After Tom Paine's 'Age of Reason' was published 
and widely read there was a marked increase of self- 
slaughter. And Infidelity holds the upper end of the 
rope for the suicide, and aims the pistol with which a 
man blows his brains out, and mixes the strychnine for 
the last swallow." 

Turning to other pages of the same paper on the 
same morning I find just four suicides announced. Rev. 
Dr. Gibson, M. E. Church, Baltimore, died suddenly on 
hearing of the suicide of his intimate friend, Richard 



112 

Cornelius, a defaulting bank cashier. Francis J. Murray, 
student in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 
took morphine and died. John M. Gossler, bank cashier 
and " teacher of a large Bible class in the Lutheran 
Church," shot himself fatally in the head ; and Mrs. W. 
H. Baker, of Trenton, N. J., cut her throat with a razor 
while taking a bath, of whom a New York paper says 
" she was a most useful member of the church." Brother 
Talmage's remarks were interesting, but he ought to 
have had some understanding with the telegraph oper- 
ator beforehand. 

W. A. CROFFUT. 



CROFFUT TO TALMAGE, 



Pulpit Story of a Revolutionary Hero in 
Controversy. 



A RETRACTION TWICE REQUESTED. 



Supported by Documentary Evidence Dr. Croffut Denies that 
Ethan Allen, Famous as an Infidel, Counseled His Dying 
Daughter to accept Her Mother's Christian Faith. 



{From the Washington Post, April 12, 1896.) 

In Dr. Talmage's morning sermon of March 29 he 
related the following anecdote: 

Col. Ethan Allen was a famous infidel in his day. His 
wife was a very consecrated woman. The mother in- 
structed the daughter in the truths of Christianity. 
The daughter sickened and was about to die, and she 
said to her father : u Father, shall I take your instruction, 
or shall I take my mother's instruction ? I am going to 
die now ; I must have the matter decided.*' That man, 
who had been loud in his infidelity, said to his dying 
daughter: " My dear, you had better take your mother's 
religion/' 

In reply to this Dr. W. A. Croffut wrote Dr. Talmage 
as follows : 



114 

" My Dear Doctor : In your sermon of March 29 you 
repeated the oft-exposed fiction that Ethan Allen, the 
illustrious 'infidel,' advised his daughter, on her death- 
bed, to accept her mother's belief rather than his ; a 
story invented by some Christian for the purpose of 
showing that the hero of the Revolution, being an 
infidel, must also have been a hypocrite. 

"Around me, as I write, are trunks full of the literary 
remains of Maj. Gen. Hitchcock, a distinguished grand- 
son of Ethan Allen, and in his written diary I find this 
alleged incident repeated, and the following words 
added: 

" ' I had often heard my mother speak of the death of 
that sister, and remembered having heard her say that 
she attended her in her last moments, and I desired to 
know whether there was any foundation for the story. 
My mother told me on two occasions that there was 
none whatever. I regard the story, therefore, as a pure 
invention in behalf of certain opinions to which my 
grandfather was supposed to be unfriendly.' 

"The hero of Ticonderoga has many descendants 
living, and they are naturally pained by the wide circu- 
lation you now give to the old calumny. 

" I need not ask if you will correct the statement and 
contradict the story in your published sermon, for I 
know that, being a fair-minded man, you will hasten to 
do so, and to give the truth the same circulation to your 
continental audience that the falsehood has enjoyed. 

" I know you will do this quite heedless of the ques- 
tion whether the confession of having made an unfounded 
statement so carelessly concerning one who was at once 
a hero and a martyr will tend to weaken the confidence 
of your hearers in the stories you tell of the frenzied 
death-beds of Paine and Voltaire, and the awful example 
of Vernon. 

" If you need a picturesque illustration for a sermon, 
I will give you one concerning this same man — Ethan 
Allen — a story which is believed by his relatives to be 



115 

true. The minister of the church he (sometimes) 
attended — a Presbyterian — preached one Sunday on 
'Predestination,' and, illustrating that sublime dogma, 
he said : 4 How many will be snatched from everlasting 
fire ! Probably not one in a thousand ! Probably not 
one in ten thousand ! Possibly not one in a million ! ' 
Whereat Ethan Allen smote the desk in front of him 
with his fist, and loudly exclaimed : ' I wouldn't give a 
damn for a ticket in that lottery ! ' You may tell this 
anecdote if you please, though, as it is not positively 
known to be true, it is better not to announce the name 
of the preacher. 

"Will you kindly give me an early answer to this 
request? Yours, most truly, 

"W. A. Ckoffut." 

To this in due time came the following answer from 
Dr. Talmage : 

" Dear Mr. Croffut : Yours received, and I have only 
time now to say if the distinguished American did, as 
you say, so lose his temper in church as to strike the 
desk in front of him, and use profane language, I have 
no further faith in him. If your impression of what he 
did on that occasion is accurate (and I know you believe 
it to be accurate), he was a vulgar and blasphemous 
man, and any contradiction that he made of what he 
said on another occasion would have no weight with me. 
I believe the story told of him, for I know of another 
case just like it. Infidelity may do for one in health 
and prosperity, but it always fails a man in great crises. 
" Your friend, 

"T. De Witt Talmage. 

" Washington, April 8, 1896." 

The following rejoinder from Dr. Croffut closes the 
correspondence as far as heard from, though he declares 



116 

that be still expects Dr. Talmage to withdraw the illus- 
tration : 

" Rev. T. De Witt Talmage : 

" My Dear Doctor : Your note of yesterday amazes 
and grieves me. When we w T orked together on Frank 
Leslie's papers, I looked upon you as a sincere and fair- 
minded man who preferred truth to anything else, and 
when I recently availed myself of your politeness and 
occupied your pew at the First Presbyterian, I was glad 
that you had room in your vigorous sermon for an 
apotheosis of truth. 

"Now, if I read your letter aright, you refuse to 
withdraw a libelous falsehood which you have carelessly 
repeated, on the ground that the victim of it was ' a vul- 
gar and blasphemous man,' and his contradiction of the 
story would have ' no weight ' with you. 

" I beg to remind you that I have not asked you to 
correct your erroneous statement on the word of Ethan 
Allen, which was never impeached, but on the testimony 
of his daughter who was present on the occasion referred 
to, as solemnly repeated by his grandson, a very distin- 
guished American soldier. I can also furnish you a con- 
tradiction by Ethan Allen's son, if you wish for cor- 
roboration. Do you reject such evidence? I do not 
believe that you have a pewholder who will. And I be- 
lieve that all who wish you well will be extremely sorry 
to see you willing to revile the dead, and unwilling to 
correct the calumnious statement when it is disproved. 

"I will take the trouble to bring to you Maj. Gen. 
Hitchcock's denial of it in his own handwriting, if you 
desire to see it. 

" You are shocked at Ethan Allen's vigorous repudia- 
tion of the barbarous hellfire dogma. You would have 
been vastly more astonished if he had been among the 
congregation in your church when you charged him with 
being an arrant hypocrite. It would have been very 
warm there for a few minutes. I fear you would have 



117 

thought his manners extremely unconventional. It is 
safer to utter such slanders against a dead man than a 
live one, and, Brother Talmage, I am glad, for your sake, 
that he was not there. When a tortured prisoner of 
war on board the Gaspe schooner, he bit off a ten-penny 
nail in his handcuffs to show some British officers who 
insulted him and reviled his country what he would do 
to them if he could get out of his dungeon. It is just 
as well that he did not attend church that morning when 
you preached about him. I admit that Ethan Allen's 
language concerning the heavenly lottery of Presbyte- 
rianism was somewhat rude but it is, perhaps, better that 
an allegation should be profane and true than pious and 
false. 

"It is chiefly for your sake that I earnestly ask you 
to reconsider your decision and withdraw the baseless 
story. Hoping to hear from you when you are clothed 
and in your right mind, I am, yours most truly, 

" W. A. Croffut." 



IRRELIGIOUS POEMS 



By W. A. CROFFUT. 






A SKIPPER'S STORY. 

They sat on the steps of the station 
And waited for trains to connect — 

A minister, eating his ration : 

A skipper, who twice had been wrecked : 

And the strangers began conversation. 

The skipper was wrinkled and hoary — 
His skin was the color of leather ; 

The preacher looked hungry and sorry. 
Well, after discussing the weather, 

The skipper struck into his story : 

" I'll tell ye of three men I know'd uv 

Who give up thar lives f er thar brothers — 

A sort ye may not hev allowed uv. 
But chaps that'll die to save others 

Is beins fer folks to be proud uv. 

" The ship Swaller, Cappen James Bee, 

In a fog off the Hatteris coast, 
Was wrecked on a ledge to the lee; 

Jim stood like a rock to his post — 
Went down in a gulp uv the sea. 

" We knocked us together a raft 

And he crowded her' full es she'd float; 

Then jumped to the davits abaft 
And lowered and loaded each boat, 

But stuck to the battered ole craft. 

" He saved every life but his own : 

Men, women, an' childern an' crew, 
And, when the last dory wuz gone, 

' Chock full ! ' he sung out, fer he knew, 
An' he went to the bottom alone ! " 

" My friend ! " asked the listener grim, 

" Had Bee made his peace with the Lord?" 
And he laid down his cracker. * ' What, Jim ? ' 

Said the skipper — " I shouldn't spose Gord 
'Ud be mad at a feller like him ! 

" Another wuz young Andy Bell, 

Who worked in the Cumberland coal ; 

He come to the mouth uv the well 

Whar the mine wuz afire, and the hole 

Blazed up like a furnace uv hell. 



122 

" The men wuz imprisoned below ; 

The women wuz screamin 5 above ; 
And the boss asked, * Who faces the foe 

And goes to the rescue for love ? ' 
And Andy remarked, ' I will go ; 

" ' There's nothin' to hender ; I haint 
Nary father ner mother ner wife.' 

And down in the bucket he went — 
Saved twenty by losin' his life ! 

O, strenger ! warnt Andy a saint ? " 

11 Did he pray God," the minister cries, 
' ' To help him to fight with the flame ? ' 

"Dunno, but," the skipper replies, 

" I've heard Andy mention His name 
More frekent than some would advise ! " 

" He loved Jesus ? — bowed at his shrine?" 
Asks the preacher, " O, then it is well ! . 

The skipper says, " Thar wuz no sign — 
But ef Jesus didn't love Andy Bell 

I don't want no Jesus in mine ! 

" The third one — Newt. Evans, my friend, 
Took his ingine to Praary du Chien ; 

Seen a speck on the track at the Bend 
An' yelled to the stoker, ' Eugene ! 

Ef that ain't a brat I'll be denned ! 

" 'A baby — an' maken mud pies I 

Mind train ! ' To the shriek uv the bell 

Jumped forerds — sprung out fer the prize — 
He saved the girl, cappen, but fell — 

His legs wuz cut off at the thighs ! " 

" Was he washed in the blood of the Lamb ? " 
Asked the preacher, " and saved from his sin ? 

The skipper arose, " Ibedam ! — 
Lemme jest git my bearins agin, 

An' sorter make out whar I am." 

He walked to the office — was mute — 

When the agent asked what he desired, 
He tapped on his pate in salute, 

Then turned out his thumb and inquired, 
1 Who is — this dam crazy — galute ? " 



123 



JIM EOOT. 

[The most terrible fire that ever swept through the pine woods of Minnesota 
was in the summer of 1894. There had been no rain for four months, and it is 
estimated that five hundred people lost their lives in this conflagration. The 
towns of Hinckley, Sandstone, Miller, and Pokegama were completely burned 
up. The passenger train from Duluth caught fire, but when it stopped at Hinck- 
ley hundreds of fugitives boarded it . Engineer James Root, kept from burning 
to death by his fireman, John McGowan, who threw water on him from the en- 
gine's tank, held the train in the awful heat until all the people that could be 
crowded on board were taken on, and then he ran the engine back six miles 
through the flames to a desolate, ill-smelling swamp, where the people threw 
themselves into the shallow water. There the train took fire and burned up, but 
most of the passengers escaped. Engineer Root was taken to the hospital in St. 
Paul badly burned.] 

The tall grass shudders shoulder high ; 

The sun uncurtained shines, 
And twig and turf are tinder-dry 

In Minnesota's pines, 
When sudden from the arid earth, 

By' winds infernal fanned, 
The fires of nether hell burst forth — 

Say, Jim Boot ! give us your hand ! 

The fires of hell burst forth, I say, 

Devour the thirsty ground, 
And settlers fly in dire dismay 

Before the bellowing sound ; 
In slimy sloughs they seek for breath — 

In swamps they make a stand, 
And grimly, gamely fight with Death — 

0, Jim Boot / give us your hand ! 

They fight with Death through weary miles ; 

The fiery furnace red 
Is flaming round the ghostly piles, 

The living and the dead. 
The battle's awful roar they hear : 

A struggling, faltering band 
Still faintly cry, " Is Hinckley near ?" 

0, Jim Boot ! give us your hand. 

A whistle answers to their moan, 

When through the crimson vaults 
The night express comes thundering down 

And in the furnace halts ! 
Old engine Sixty-nine, impressed 

And by a hero manned, 
Is in a flaming garment dressed — 

0, Jim Boot ! give us your hand. 



124 

A garb of flame that swirls and soars, 

Like Gabriel's fiery car 
The prophet rode from Jordan's shores 

And sought the morning star ■ 
A chariot sped for human weal, 

And in it, calm and grand, 
A live man grasps the throttle steel — 

0, Jim Boot ! give us your hand ! 

He holds the heated lever square, 

While, driven far and wide, 
The hunted hosts are hastening there 

Upon the fiery tide. 
They leap before Death's fearful sword 

From off the blazing land 
To frantic cry of "All aboard ! " 

0, Jim Root! give us your hand! 

" Quick ! All aboard! " he cries, and spurns 

His flaming visor grim, 
While sturdy Jack McGowan turns 

The stoker's hose on him : 
He answers with defiant shout 

That shows he's got the sand ; 
And jerks the blistering lever out — 

Here, Jim Hoot ! give us your hand ! 

O deed divine ! The engine flies 

And drags a flaming train 
To safety, which shall ne'er arise 

To take the track again — 
And hundreds leap to solid ground 

Beyond the deadly strand, 
And one a hospital has found — 

0, Jim Boot! give us your hand! 

If on some cloud or shining star 

The homes of seraphim 
And saints and gods and angels are 

They'll ask no creed from him ; 
And when he's done his earthly task 

The whole transcendent band 
Will stoop and say — a boon to ask — 

Hail, Jim Boot ! give us your hand I 



125 



SOME PLEAS FOR JUSTICE. 

A pensive maiden gently moaned, "All, me ! 

It can not, can not be 

That no Heaven is where recompense is wrought, 

Where Time is lost in one eternal span, 

Where Hope finds fruitage in the perfect plan, 

Where Wickedness is stayed and Wisdom taught, 

For justice then were nought." 

A youth his glance upon a mirror cast 

And sighed, " Such grace will last. 
I see the truth of what the preachers say : 
I am a noble, splendid, perfect thing, 
Quite godlike and not made for perishing — 
These charms must shine in Heaven's immortal ray, 
Through one eternal day!" 

A dying man I saw and heard him groan, 

" The next life shall atone ! 
This pain shall be forgot in yonder skies ; 

The wrong that harries and torments us here 
Shall perish in God's luminous atmosphere ; 
Justice shall triumph when this soul shall rise 
And soar to Paradise !" 

I heard a heavy-laden dray-horse say, 

"Alack! Alack-a-day! 
Some Heaven there is, as every horse agrees, 
Where, all uncumbered of life's weary load 
And spared the cruel bit, the lash, the goad, 
We shall be free to wander where we please 
Through clover-beds of ease !" 

I heard a vivisected fox-hound cry, 

"Ah ! what a martyr I ! 
But just beyond the grave there is a place 

Where mortals shall be spared life's bitter cup, 
And pain and pleasure shall be evened up — 
Where foxes shall be furnished for the chase 
In one eternal race !" 

I saw a fox, wounded unto the death, 

That whined, with latest breath, 
" To Reynard Heaven, beyond the veil, I go, 

Where hounds, to Hades banished, chase us not, 
Where horns of hateful huntsmen are forgot, 
Where homes of fowls nor locks nor palings know, 
And chickens roost them low !" 



126 

I heard a hen cluck with her dying voice, 
" Though tortured, I rejoice ! 
I fly unto celestial meadows fair, 

Where murderous foxes never come to slay, 
Nor axe announces dread Thanksgiving Day, 
And bugs are savory and tender there, 

And nice worms everywhere !" 

I heard ten thousand maple buds complain, 
Torn by the April rain : 
" That this is final death can never be ! 

The ' Law of Nature ' we sublimely scorn 
That hath for us no resurrection morn — 
What mockery, if some other bud than we 
Shall rear the perfect tree !" 

And then I heard a sage : " Our lowly birth 

Was redolent of earth — 
Our consciousness may end as it began : 
Who has assured us we shall live again 
Till pleasure shall by measure equal pain ? 
Why should we dream that Nature keeps for man 
Some reimbursement plan ? 

' i The fanciful equation is beyond 

Great Reason's pledge and bond. 
I have had more of life than was my meed, 

And kept some sweet babe tarrying for me ; 
All pardon crave I for delinquency, 
And wave farewell — bidding the child, indeed, 
Good morrow and good speed!" 



THE MINE AT CALUMET. 

Excoose ! Be you the dominee 

That folks call Parson Boone ? 
Wal — Jane an' me hes called to see 

Ef you'll ride Monday noon 
To Calumet, to bury Jim — 

James Baker — he is dead — 
Death hil too strong a hand for him, 

Es you have often said. 



127 

' Perfess ? " He didn't perfess. He hed 

One simple way all through. 
He merely practised, an' he said 

That that would hev to do. 
' Prayed ? " Never — not es I hev known— 

'Oept mebby with his han's, 

An' 'stead of claspin' of his own 

He clasped his feller-man's. 

' Under conviction ? " The idee ! 

He never done a thing 
To be convicted fer : why, he 

Wus straighter than a string. 
Oh, say ! He was a nifty man ! 

Oh, he was brave an' square, 
His mighty heart was bigger than 

That meetin' house out there ! 



Eh ? " Jined the church ? " You don't ketch on ! 

You couldn't a-knowed 'im, pard ! 
To them as did, now he is gone 

Your questionin' sounds hard, 
I told 'm up to town to-day, 

"Above the sexton's dirt 
Let Parson say his little say ; 

He can't do any hurt." 



1 Fire in the Osceola mine ! " 

Jim heered the awful cry 
That rose from level 29, 

Es he wus passin' by ; 
An' down the burnin' shaft he went 

To where the flames begun, 
An' up the half-dead miners sent 

Es fast es skips c*ould run. 

Through other drifts he searched around 

An' lyin' stifled there, 
A dozen helpless men he found 

And dragged to light and air ; 
An' my boy, Timothy — my Tim — 

He found, too weak to crawl, 
An' got him in the skip — but Jim — 

He didn't come up at all. 



128 

We waited fer him all night long 

An' watched an' hil our breath, 
A sufferin', tearful, hopeless throng, 
i Around that pit of death ; 
An' when the smoke blew out, my son 

Crep down to learn his fate — 
He reached him, but the worst wus done — 

He found him — just too late ! 

He died adoin' 

What he could find to do. 
' Did he perfess ? " Wal 

I never knowed him to. 
Don't notice if my talk is broke 

An' if my eyes should leak, 
Tain't Tim — nor mother — but the smoke 

Hes kinder made 'em weak. 

What ! ' ' How about his soul ? " Look 'ere ! 

Intendin' no offence, 
Your dumb-fool questions doos appear 

To show a lack of sense. 
If I repeat 'em, like es not, 

When you come moseyin' down 
You'd find our place most awful hot — 

They'll make you jump the town ! 

Don't come ! Hunt other souls to save ! 

His neighbors at the Green 
Will gather round Jim Baker's grave 

An' tell the things they've seen. 
Ef God don't know what's good and true 

An' wants to punish him, 
Why, rather'n go to Heaven with you, 

I'll go to hell with Jim ! 



SILENCING THE NEWSBOYS. 

[The new order, therefore, will hardly lessen sales (I wish it would), but will 
only protect those who agree with Horace Greeley's saying that the Sunday paper 
is a social demon. — Kev. W. F. Crafts.] 

The Sunday morning paper is a fiend — 

A demon of inordinate degree — 
It fetches information it has gleaned, 

And sells as cheap as anything can be. 
If people wouldn't buy it, 
Nor consume the dreadful diet, 
They'd have a chance of listening to me ! 



129 

It gathers up such puerile reports 

Of what mere human folks have done and said- 
The news of balls and markets, wars and sports, 
And people are unhappy till they've read ; 
If they missed its lively column 
It would make them pretty solemn, 
And they'd have to go to meeting or to bed ! 

If preachers stated only what they know — 

From Darkness never borrowing a gleam, 
Insisting on what Reason says is so, 

And basing no conclusion on a dream, 
They might be wise and witty, 
But how paltry and how petty 
And very superficial they would seem ! 

The paper would be better if 'twere worse ; 

It mixes up religion with its stocks ; 
Has sermons, science, vaudeville and verse, 
And ever at intolerance it mocks ; 

It has merriment that tickles, 
And it pockets half the nickels 
Intended for our contribution box ! 

The Sunday morning paper is a fiend — 

A demon of inordinate degree — 
Its victims are with difficulty weaned 

From appetites whose willing slaves they be ; 
If they only wouldn't read 'em 
It would be the truest freedom 
For they'd have a chance of listening to me ! 



THE NAUGHTY NEWSPAPERS. 

" Come, Jake ! It's almost meetin' time ; 

Throw down that paper streaked with red, 
Filled full of filth and vice and crime — 

Them papers is a raisin' Ned ! 
Ef you would read yer Bible more, 

Ye'd mebby reap the blest reward 
Of that ole saint I named ye for — 

The good old prophet of the Lord!" 



130 

"Yes, pa! be gosh ! There is some queer 
An' crooked things gits into print ! 
Las' night I seen a paper here 

Thet hed high-flavored stories in't." 
1 ' What wus they, Jakey ? Might es well 
Go on an' say, now you've begun ; 
It ain't no special harm to tell, 

But papers shouldn't publish one." 



" Wal, pa, a laborin' man, it said, 

Hired to a farmer way down East, 
An' rounded up his stock, and fed 

Sheep, cows, and every kind of beast, 
And toiled along for several year 

Fer jest his board, until one day 
He quit, and told his boss, ' See here ! 

I guess it's time I hed some pay.' 

" The old man answered, ' Times is hard ! 

Mutton 's a drug and money scurse. 
Don't ask fer cash fer yer reward, 

Fer that would drain my poor old purse. 
My oldest darter hes sore eyes, 

But tother's perty, folks declare — 
Two lively bits of merchandise — 

Take both the gals and call it square ! ' " 

" Both on 'em, Jake, at onct ? Two wives ! " 

" Yes, pa, the paper gives their names — 
He took 'em ; they lived pious lives ; 

Hed lots of children — so it claims. 
And, pa, what gen'rous souls was theirs ! 

That he might be a fruitful limb, 
They called two servant girls upstairs, 

And made both on 'em marry him ! " 

" Four wives at onct ? The horrid wretch ! 
He went an' married all the four ? 
Now, Jake, I wish you wouldn't fetch 
Such wicked papers here no more." 
14 An' then he robbed his father-'n-law — 
Stole all his stock, the paper says — 
Took all the cows and sheep he saw 
An' lighted out between two days ! " 



131 

' Wal, Jakey ! Did they catch the thief 
And chuck him in the county jail ?" 
" No, pa ; he never come to grief — 
His projecks didn't seem to fail ; 
And when he went to fetch the cows 

God met him, and remarked, ' My friend, 
You've acted square and kep your vows — 
I'll stand right by you to the end ! ' " 

"Pshaw, Jake ! A likely yarn indeed ! 

"What paper lies at seen a rate ? " 
" W'y, pa, the one you always read — 

The Meth'dis Christian Advocate ! " 
" The Meth " " Yes, pa, and you've abhorred 

The patriarch that you adore — 
That good ole prophet of the Lord — 

The gentleman you named me for ! " 

c ' Jacob ! This here is Atheist talk ! 

Foolin' your father ! Think it's wit ? 
Out of my house this day you walk 

Fer makin' fun of Holy Writ. 
I'll cut you off without a cent ! 

Git out ! Pack up your duds an' post ! 
My son ! my son ! He's ben an' went 

And sinned aginst the Holy Ghost ! " 



A WORD WITH PHARAOH. 

[Dr. Croff ut lectures every winter, and has an interesting and varied repertory, 
including "Egypt," "Palestine," "Rome and Athens," "The Bermudas and 
Bahamas," " Yucatan and Mexico," " The Yellowstone," and " The Trails to the 
Klondike," all abundantly and beautifully illustrated with stereopticon views. 
In his lecture on Egypt, Dr. Croffut presents a fine lantern-slide of the head of King 
Kamses II, " The Pharaoh of the Oppression," who is known in history as 
Sesostris the Great. The Jews have a tradition that this Pharaoh was in youth 
a schoolmate of Moses. The lecturer thus addresses the photograph of Pharaoh, 
whose embalmed body was a few years ago discovered and is now exhibited in 
the Boulak Museum.] 

Hail, Pharaoh I Sesostris ! Great favorite of Ammon, 
Osiris and Horus, Hamarchis, and Mammon, 
Are you the dread war-god who made an invasion 
Of Persia and conquered the Turk and the Asian? 
Whose laureate, Pentaur, proclaimed a te deum 
Therefor in the halls of your own Rameseum ? 
Whose throne is the earth, and whose title " the great " is ? 
Whose anchor was dropped in the mighty Euphrates ? 
Who captured the kings of the peerless Phoenicians, 
Made slaves of the Arabs, subdued the Ephesians, 
Assaulted Damascus the splendid, and took it, — ? 
Well, may be, your Majesty, but, — you don't look it ! 



132 

You thought that when three thousand summers should make up 

The period of penance, the mummy would wake up, 

And, crowned in the halls of Amenti, the spacious, 

Would spring into life again, young and vivacious. 

Tour Majesty must have been slightly mistaken ; 

Your tenement still is entirely forsaken. 

We look on the world of amusement a minute, 

Then glance at your mummy and say, " He's not in it ! " 

Old Egypt, O king, on antiquity nourished, 
Is not what she was when your dynasty flourished ; 
Fear, ignorance, sloth, and devoutness have kept her 
Somewhat in the rear since you wielded the scepter; 
While prostrate, bewailing distress and disaster, 
Young infants in arms have arisen and passed her. 

The sun, that you worshipped with Apis and Taurus, 
We make paint our portraits and photographs for us : 
We walk, or we talk, or we dance, and our action 
Is caught for all time, without loss of a fraction — 
The play of the lip or the eyelash's flutter 
Entrapped to illustrate the words that we utter. 
We whisper our thought o'er the ocean or under, 
And use for the whisper the trumpet of thunder ; 
We fly round the earth, o'er sea, mountain and mesa, 
Before you could travel from Karnac to Gizeh ! 

Right under your royal beak, Ramses the second, 
Reform has awakened and Progress has beckoned ; 
Old Thebes enjoys incense and offerings votive, 
In the smoke of a seventy-five ton locomotive ! 
A yacht just from Boston ties up at El Hamel, 
The bicycle spins in the track of the camel, 
And the phonograph carols and ventures to render a 
Pinafore snatch in the ruins of Dendereh ! 

O, Sire, if your father had borrowed a Kodac 

While Moses and you were in college at Lodac, 

And got a snap shot, while the boys, deep in study, 

Conned pageants majestic for victories bloody, 

Conned how your great-grandsire, thro' Joseph's advices 

Got a corner on wheat and an option on prices, 

Conned how Mrs. Potiphar patiently perished, 

A nunnery hiding the dreams that she cherished ! 

Ah, that little " if "is a word that is fateful ; 

But, Pharaoh, we'll take what is left, and be grateful. 



133 

Your features are calm, though you never shall waken, 

And haughty your head, though the gods have forsaken ; 

If sore disappointed, your face does not show it ; 

Though sleep be protracted, you never shall know it. 

Anubis may doze by Eternity's portal. 

But hope, amaranthine, will blossom immortal. 

So not all in vain were the Bull's sacred stables, 

And not all in vain were the priests and their fables, 

And not all in vain the bright ribbon of Iris 

That belted the clouds in the land of Osiris. 



RECENT POEMS 



OF 



POLITICS AND SENTIMENT 



By W. A. CROFFUT. 



JONATHAN AND JOHN.* 

''You're trespassin' on neighbor V.." 

Says Jonathan to John, 
"For that's his land, I plainly see, 
You've built your fences on ; 
I heared him sendin' up his plea 
That you'd go off an' let him be : 
You're dreadful careless, seems to me," 
Says Jonathan to John. 

" 'Tain't his— it's my own pastur' ground," 

Says John to Jonathan : 
11 My cattle broke acrost the bound. 
An' on his medder ran, 
An' then I 'ad to fence 'em round 
So 'at they alius could be found, — 
W'ich makes my claim hintirely sound," 
Says John to Jonathan. 

" Your reasonin' "s amazin' new," 

Says Jonathan to John ; 
" Y T our line's the old one Shambug drew 
An' stuck his stakes upon ; 
Now let me tell you w'at to du : 
The titles let us neighbors view 
An' jedge w'at b'longs to him an* you," 
Says Jonathan to John. 

"The land's all mine, as hi 'ave said," 

Says John to Jonathan, 
ki An' hi'll defend it till hi'ni dead, 
An' show you that I can. 
W'ateyer owner was ahead, 
That blawsted owner never'll tread 
On medders where my stock has fed," 
Says John to Jonathan. 

" Consarned cantankerous you air," 

Says Jonathan to John : 
;> Yo ve been encroachin' everywhere 
Ycfur pesky folks hes gone. 
But ez to V., you ken repair 
The damage, — show yer titles there, 
An' arbitrate the hull affair," 
Says Jonathan to John. 

* John Bull and Neighbor Venezuela being concerned. — 1896. 



138 

" I'll arbitrate with Mister V.," 

Says John to Jonathan, 
" All that I've stole quite recently 
An' mapped upon my plan ; 
But w'at I stole before can't be 
Subjected to a new decree — 
For that, uv course, belongs to me," 
Says John to Jonathan. 

" You rogue ! I'll teach you what is what ! " 

Says Jonathan to John ; 
"I'll send my judges to the spot 
Where these 'ere lines are drawn, 
An' hev 'em measure off your lot, 
An' find exactly w'at you've got, — 
Nor don't you touch another jot ! " 
Says Jonathan to John. 



THE SEARCH FOR HAPPINESS. 

" How can I be happy ? " sighed Cleon, the King, 
" And never unhappy again ? 
I wonder if 'fcis an attainable thing? " 

And he summoned his maids and his men. 

" 'Tis known," said a courtier, " that whoso will find 
A man who is happy all day, 
And wear that man's shirt, it will quiet his mind— 
He'll be happy for ever and aye." 

The King rode afar, thro' al] countries and climes, 

Fast galloped he many a mile, 
And he found several men who were happy sometimes, 

But none who were so all the while. # 



At last he o'ertook, to his boundless delight, 

Slow trudging along in his track, 
A man who was happy from morning till night, — 

But he hadn't a shirt to his back ! 



139 



TO AND ABOUT A LOCUST. 



Rise ! venerable infant under ground ! 

Hullo ! Art never to have second birth ? 
When I was but a boy, and loitered round, 

I saw thee dig thy cavern in the earth 
So deep and dark that thou couldst not be found — 
— Almost a score of years he keeps 
His fortress of protection, 
And still within his coffin sleeps, 
Awaiting resurrection. 

Aha ! Good morning ! Comest to the light ? 

How hast thou lived these many, many years ? 
Hast thou been nourished through the long, long night 

With dreams of wheat-fields and their golden spears, 
And wakest now for pillage and for flight ? 
— The chrysalis is finding wings, 
And after meditation 
He climbs a flowering shrub and clings 
To take an observation. 

Take care, young veteran, or thou'lt split thy back ! 
Look out, nor dance too recklessly ! Take care ! 
Keep still ! Thou'lt shake to pieces in thy track, 
Thus twisting constantly and twitching — there ! 
Thou'st done it ! Thou art bursting through the crack ! 
— He wriggled from his wrinkled rind 
As fast as he could scramble, 
And left his counterpart behind 
A-clinging to the bramble. 

My soaring Proteus ! In the shifting scene 

Shedding thy clothing, thou wilt catch a cold — 
In pretty polonaise of ocean green, 

In leather-lace fichu and belt of gold, 
Palpi of silk and musical machine — 

— With claws of steel it clasped a thorn, 
The robe that was discarded — 
And through dead spectacles of horn 
The runaway regarded. 



140 

Blithe minstrel of the woodland clarionet ! 

I've cornered thee at last, elusive elf ! 
They said thou wert invisible, and yet 

I find thee hiding on thy curtained shelf 
Demure and silent, as if thou had'st met — 

— Whist ! Now he sees me with surprise, 
And turns about to con me, 
And casts his thousand-pupiled eyes 
Inquiringly upon me ! 

Fly not, O sylvan singer ! Tarry, while 

The day reveals thine opalescent hues — 
Thy rich lace gown and head-gear quaint of style, 

Thy mottled stockings and thy soft grey shoes, — 
O, stay, thou charming stranger ! Stay, and I'll — 
— Sh ! Down the midget sits again ; 
His myriad optics glisten ; 
Perhaps he's going to pipe a strain 
While I am here to listen. 

Sweet ! Sweet ! Thou Mario of the maple, thanks ! 

Encore ! Again that rich and quavering note ! 
Thy mellow song of liquid sweetness ranks 

With rich, ecstatic anthem from the throat 
Of nightingale on Guadalquiver's banks — 

— " So insincere ?" Well, where's the wrong ? 
One's bound to be delighted 
And clap his hands at every song 
Where one has been invited. 

Thy throat thou dost not use, thou gifted one, 

Nor agitate thy lungs, not ope thy mouth ; 
I see thine elbows twitching in the sun, 

As if a hurdy-gurdy of the south 
Thou did'st propel for melody or fun — 

— Aha ! Behold ! The trick is known ! 
For as the locust lingers 
He drums upon his collar bone 
And fiddles on his fingers. 

How varied the acquirements ! Thou hast song ! 

The mother of thy brood has not a note ; 
And while thou chirpest, chirpest all day long, 

She, toiling, files the dainty cradle out 
In which shall wake to life the larval throng — 

— He thrills, while she, with busy saw, 
Prepares for home's expansion, 
As Choctaw whistles while his squaw 
Erects the family mansion. 



141 

Orthopteran ! Why hush thy plaintive horn ? 

Why faintest when thy stridulent note is sped, 
And droppest on the leaves a thing forlorn ? 
What ! piper, art thou in a moment dead, 
Who took so many years to get thee born ? 

— Departed ! Dead as Marley's ghost — 
The vaulting, vaunting gryllus ; 
With what strange thoughts his splendid boast 
And small achievements fill us ! 

Ethereal spirit ! Whither hast thou flown ? 

Why leavest thy forsaken casket here ? 
Hast thou an elfin bugle to be blown 

And spectral bag-pipes in some sunny sphere ? 
And what the philosophic moral to be drawn ? 
— A " moral" is like luscious mead — 
Whatever sun may strike it, 
Let each man draw his own, indeed, 
And then he's sure to like it. 



THE YOSEMITE. 

O, words ! how poor and vain and weak 
When of the masterpiece we speak — 
Of emerald vale and starry peak — 

The grandeurs of Yosemite ! 

What know we of the age remote 

When, on azoic seas afloat, 

Great Nature sailed her granite boat 

And dreamt about Yosemite ? 

When demon thrones were upward hurled 
And fiery flags were high unflurled 
From bastions of a nascent world 

Beneath thy gulf, Yosemite ? 

When Vulcan, tired of labors tame, 

Lit up his furious forge of flame 

And smote young Terra's molten frame 

And fashioned wild Yosemite ? 

We only know this Titan's home 
Of ribboned fall and purple dome 
Is crystal of the primal foam 

That bathed thy beach, Yosemite. 

Fair jewel ! Gold and pink and brown 
In splendor shining softly down, 
The Kohinoor in Nature's crown — 
Magnificent Yosemite ! 



142 

SALUTATION TO MOLOCH. 

(Aie : "Bonnie Dundee.") 

To the Moloch of Nations 'twas Grover that spoke : 
Our children will spurn your piratical yoke ; 
Hands off ! They are free but they are feeble, and so 
We will read you the lesson of Colonel Monroe. 

Choeus : Come, fill up my cup ; come, fill up my can, 

Bring saddle for horse and equipment for man ; 
If the thief of the planet more insolent grow 
We will teach him the morals of Mister Monroe. 

This Johnny Bulldozing it never will do, 
Ere weaklings are rifled, we've rifles for you ; 
On the soil you have stolen our judges shall go 
And lay down the tape-line of Colonel Monroe. 

(Chorus :) 

Ere lifting the gantlet lookout ! Bj t the Powers ! 
The Irish in Ireland are fewer than ours — 
From Bantry to Dublin and North Kinnegoe 
They'll march with the banners of Colonel Monroe. 

(Choeus:) 

We've counted your warships, asleep on the tide ; 
Your merchant-ships, myriads, uncounted they ride ! 
What prizes we might have to gobble, you know, 
Enforcing the " Doctrine" of Colonel Monroe! 

(Choeus:) 

First justice, then peace ! " Out of date " at this day, 
And "not international law " — as you say ; 
Defense of the weak from a swaggering foe — 
Quixotic injunction of Colonel Monroe. 

(Choeus :) 

Great Braggart of Nations ! Your strength shall decay ! 
Your cheek is of brass, but your feet are of clay ; 
Halt ! Right about face ! and less covetous grow 
As you study the lessons of Colonel Monroe. 

Choeus : O, Philip McCupp and Philip McCann 

And Yawcob and Hans will enlist to a man 

To bring the world's bandit and plunderer low, 

And teach him the morals of Mister Monroe. 



143 



THE EPHESIAN DOME.* 

Ho ! Watchman on the walls afar ! 

Again the tigers rove ; 
Hate's fiery star is fierce with war 

The peaceful earth above ; 
Now, haste ! The gates of Janus bar 

"With bolts of triple love. 

In puny wrath the infant cries 

Beside the island sea, 
And, as its angry wails arise, 

And all unheeded be, 
It to the world the torch applies 

And calls it being free ! 

No war for any greed of gain 

Is worth a widowed wife, 
Or child bereft, or father slain, 

Or, stretched in bloody strife 
Along a single battle plain, 

A single human life ! 

No creed e'er cradled in the heart 

Is worth the hellish mood 
That makes Tasmanian devils start 

And pour a fiery flood 
O'er vale and mountain, moor and mart, 

And drench the earth with blood. 

The cross and crescent, fierce in fight, 

Who calls the battle blest ? 
The flag whose right is banded Might, 

With peace upon its crest, 
All gleaming white in morning light, 

That banner is the best ! 

Ho ! W x atchman on the walls afar ! 

Again the tigers rove ; 
Chain up the furies' crimson car, 

Lest brutal Ares move — 
The gates of Janus lock and bar 

W T ith bolts of triple love ! 



* Greece in 1876. 



144 



THE QUARRELSOME URCHIN. 

In the county of Osman and town of Karete 
A bad litte boy rushed into the street 
And struck every man he happened to meet, 
Then raised an angry bawl, 
" I'm the chap that nobody dares to beat, 
Because I'm so very small." 

He ran amuck through the startled town ; 
His whip he flourished up and down ; 
With the lash|he answered his victims' frown 
And threatened the strong and tall — 
" He'd ought to be spanked," said good Dame Brown, 
" But he is so very small ! " 

He found a man too sick to stand, 

And shouted, " You robber ! Get off from your land! " 
And a brickbat flung with reckless hand, 
Then raised a joyous squall ; 
" I hit him right into the head ! That's grand ! " 
But he was so very small ! 

From his father's store he was able to add 

A deadly gun to the chafing gad, 

Then shot in the crowd and killed a lad, 

And the town cried, " Hasn't he gall ? 
It is too bad ! Exceedingly sad ! 

But then he's so very small! " 

He lighted a torch and carried it through 

The town till a conflagration grew, 

And his neighbors cried, " We never knew 

So wicked a boy at all — 
But let him do as he wants to do, 

Because he's so very small ! " 

His name it was Greece, I heard them say, 
And he wailed and bullied them day by day 
Till they said, ' i In order to stop the affray, 

And the horrible quarrel and brawl, 
We'll let the little imp have his way, 

Because he's so very small ! " 



145 



CUBA.* 

O, fertile, fair, and fruitful isle 

Of summer's gift and graces, 
Thou'st been oppressed a weary while — 

To thee we turn our faces : 
We lay our hand upon thine own, 

We find our heart repeating 
The music of thy plaintive tone — 

Our pulse in concert beating. 

We, too, have felt the insolence 

Of Europe's mad aggression ; 
We, too, in battle's hot defense 

Have met the hireling Hessian ; 
So now we wait, till, prey no more 

To absentee and jobber, 
Thy sons from all thy radiant shore 

Shall hurl the alien robber. 

Soon may thy mercenary foe, 

Made wise by death and distance, 
More prudent grow and learn to know 

A freeman's wild resistance. 
May happy homes where love endears 

Make bold the patriot raider, 
And bayonet-hedge, like cactus spears, 

Receive the hired invader ! 

O, land of flowers, and cane and vine, 

O, Queen of fair Antilles, 
The arm of Spain shall yield to thine, 

Like Hector to Achilles ; 
Their guilty doom Hidalgos hear 

And Bourbons meet disaster, 
Till no man in our hemisphere 

Shall call a king his master ! 

In Philip's western realm thou hast 

No longer a companion : 
Thou, little islet, art the last 

Of haughty Spain's dominion. 
Then arm each cane-brake, copse, and crag, 

Until, no longer vassal, 
Thy sacred blood-anointed flag 

Shall float from Moro Castle ! 

*Read at the meeting in behalf of " Cuba libre," Washington, 1896. 



146 

Wherever freemen may aspire — 

Wherever freemen may go, 
From land of ice to land of fire, — 

Greenland to Del Fuego, 
If they, self-poised, self-governing, 

Disdain the rule of others, 
And spurn the craft of priest and king, 

We hail them as our brothers ! 

Then fling upon the hordes of Spain 

Young Cuba's fierce battalion — 
To wreck a throne or break a chain 

We welcome man's rebellion. 
We hail thy fearless little band, 

And millions will abet us 
To forge a brand and lend a hand 

As far as Grover'll let us. 

Oh, summer land of smiles and tears! 

In hope thy sorrow traces 
Its martyrdom through crimson years- 

To thee we turn our faces. 
We lay our hand upon thine own, 

Like drums our pulses beating ; 
Answer the bugle thou hast blown, 

Our heart the song repeating. 



AT AN APPLE-STAND. 

(WHAT I SAID. ) 

Hi, boy ! I've come to get some more — 
Those apples that I had before — 

Yes, these, my little shaver. 
One bite brings back my boyhood ; I'm 
Transported to a by-gone time 

By their familiar flavor. 

Alas ! since from a neighbor's trees 
I plucked exactly such as these, 

With cheeks to crimson shaded, 
And taste like this — a pleasant tart — 
And sound and perfect to the heart, 

Full twenty years have faded. 



147 

How often, on the way to school, 
I took the path above the pool 

Beneath that fruity shadow, 
Through which the sun of summer bright 
Cast down a dappled net of light 

Upon the emerald meadow ! 

And how that leafy covert rang 

When all the feathered minstrels sang ! 

The twitter of the linnet, 
The merry robin's gurgling gush, 
The bluebird, bobolink, and thrush, — 

I hear them all this minute. 

And there sweet Kitty Ransom came 
With eyes of blue and cheeks aflame, 

As home from school she wended, 
As nimble-footed as a fawn, — 
A fleck of light upon the lawn, 

Of grace and goodness blended, 

I clasped her trembling finger-tips 
One morn, and kissed her glowing lips, 

And pledged my love to Kitty ; — 
But twenty years have fled since then — 
And that was Kennebunk in Maine, 

And this is New York City. 

(what the boy said. ) 

Say ! I was borned in Kennebunk, 
And, 'fore she married Jacob Munk, 

My ma was Kitty Ransom ! 
These is the fruit yer talkin' 'bout ! 
Now, Mister, hev a peck ? — Shell out ! 

You'd ought to come down han'some ! 



A STUDY IN SOCIALISM. 
Questioning the Bee, by L. S. Bevington, in " Liberty Lyrics/ 

How have you managed it, bright busy bee ? 
You are all of you useful, yet each of you free. 

W T hat man only talks of, the busy bee does ; 

Shares food, and keeps order, with no waste of buzz. 

No cell that's too narrow, no squander of wax, 
No damage to pay, and no rent, and no tax. 



148 

No drones kept in honey to look on and prate, 
No property tyrants, no big-wigs of State. 

Free access to flowers, free use of all wings ; 

And when bee-life is threatened, then free use of stings. 

No fighting for glory, no fighting for pelf ; 
Each thrust at the risk of the soldier himself. 

Conies over much plenty one summer, you'll see 
A lull and a leisure for each busy bee. 

No over- work, under- work, glut of the spoil ; 
No hunger for any, no purposeless toil. 

Economy, Liberty, Order, and Wealth ! 

Say, busy bee, how have you reached Social Health ? 



Answer of the Bee, By W. A. Croffut, in New York Tribune. 

Buzz, buzz ! Are you blind ? For you certainly make 
In your list of my comforts an awful mistake. 

I've seen you sit there in your cabin and plan, 
And have said to myself, u O, that I were a man ! " 

Don't you know that my life's a continual fight 
From larva to grave and from morning to night ? 

Don't you know we have fought every hive in the row 
And that every big swarm in the town is our foe, 

And that whether On warlike or saccharine cruise 
We're armed with a spear it may kill us to use ? 

Don't you know we've a queen who's as cruel as Cain, 
And slaughters whoever of toil would complain, 

Who has thousands of warriors and drones in her court 
And princesses proud that we have to support ? 

She slays all her sisters in murderous mood, 
Then stabs the kind father of all her brood ; 

And if she should perish, as mortals will do, 

The whole hive, just out of respect, must die, too ! 

Don't you know we are slaves all our down-trodden lives 
And never can have either children or wives ? 

My mandibles ache and my palpi are sore 
Erecting wax walls and defending the door, 



149 

And hunting up nectar nutritious and sweet 
And fetching wine-jelly for big-bugs to eat. 

So, sometimes I kick, on my Socialist shelf, 
And wish I could vote and could govern myself. 

We're always in danger from birds, moths, or bees, 

Or we're smothered in smoke or we starve or we freeze ; 

We never expire in a home's peaceful fold, 
But die with our boots on like bandits of old. 

Compete ? I should think so ! I led a foray 
To capture the fort of our rivals to-day ; 

Her majesty sends us to put to the sword 

That hivef ul of thieves on the end of this board ! 

Hullo ! There's a swallow ! To dodge him I'll try — 
O, murder ! He sees me ! He's got me ! Good bye! 



A EEBEL'S CONFESSION. 

Yaas, I fit in the War., I wer on the losin' side — 

A Johnny Reb, — I mention it, but 'taint no cause of pride ; 

Fer I wer down in Dixie wen the trouble come to me — 

I wer riz in Alabaniy, way up the Tennessee. 

Thet's how it come about, you know — Secesh wer in the air — 

The State wer boss, the Fedril Guvment wusn't anywhere ; 

O, you'd a-done the same, prehaps. ef you'd ben rizen thar ; 

For ole John Brown hed stole our nigs, ole Abe hed follered suit, 

An gwine to march his minions down to tread us under foot. 

It made us mad, this sort o' thing : we swore it shouldn't be : 

So wen, in Alabamy, way up the Tennessee, 

The ole Tuscumby Battery inlisted fur the fight, 

I signed the roll and waded in, not doubtin it wer right ! 

An after we hed mustered under Cap'n Deacon Brown, 

We halted off aginst the church, ez we was mar chin' down, 

To git the benediction av the oldest man in town, — 

He fout behind the cotton bales — my uncle, Marion Eowe, — 

An left a leg at New Orleans nigh fifty year befo'. 



150 

He leaned out on the winder sill an looked along the line — 

On his white har an shakin crutch I see the candle shine, 

An tears wus runnin down the cheeks uv Uncle Marion Rowe, 

An in his hand a little flag he hill, an waved it — so — 

"My boys," cried he, "turn back! turn back ! the warnin uv a 

friend ! 
The trouble you air bringin on you'll never see it end. 
For wot you break in anger is alius hard to mend — 
Don't fire upon the flag ! Turn back !" we see him tremblin stand, 
An then he dropped and died right thar, the banner in his hand ! 

Some said it wer a judgment ; some thot he wer insane ; 
Some 'lowed twer second chilehood, an failin uv the brain ; 
At any rate, the drums struck up ; we took the path once mo', 
An hed right smart of fightin' from the mountings to the sho'— 
At Corinth, Shiloh, Donelson, and Chattahoochie Sound, 
At Nashville, Dalton, Mission Ridge, an all the hills around 
Ole Kennesaw, till half uv us wus furloughed under ground. 
An frequent, with a solemn smile, wen we wa'n't feelin gay, 
We'd talk uv Uncle Marion, an wot he use to say. 

We sometimes dremp of him, and on picket line at night 

We'd see him wavin' of his flag — a dreadful shivery sight — 

And wen a crony died, and we'uns layin' him away, 

" To meet yer Uncle Marion " wus wot the boys 'd say. 

Wal, finally it petered out ; the ole shell busted in; 

Our Mammoth Cave with that un in Kentucky wus a twin, 

An we retreated on a lope to start the world agin. 

An wen old 'Lysses settled it thet Uncle Sam should rule, 

Two things he let us tote home — meditation an a mule. 

Wal, Jim, I hev got shet uv them ole obsolete idees. 

I've looked around for years an seen wot everybody sees : 

I've seen that Dixie wus behind an Yankee ways wus best, 

I've seen that ole Abe probly knew wot ole John Brown hed 

guessed ; 
I've seen the niggers chuckle at the thought uv bein free ; 
I've seen wealth rollin on to thet astonishin degree 
That some has reached Tuscumby on the upper Tennessee — 
An wen I set at night an think, the fact is mighty plain 
It wusn't Uncle Marion but me that wus insane. 

I'm proud uv these United States es any man to-day ; 

Proud uv the flag wen under it my joyful child'en play ; 

Proud uv the schools thet teach 'em things I never heared about 

Till they come tellin' uv me wot the teachers lies found out ; 

Proud uv the land whose prizes go to industry and worth, 

Which holds its head as high as any natiou on the earth, 

An every mother's baby hes a blessin' with its birth. 

Wat a confounded idjot I form'ly use to be 

Wen I listed in Tuscumby on the upper Tennessee ! 



151 

I'm glad the ole Confed'raey wus blighted in the bud : 

I'm glad thet we wus walloped by the chaps uv kindred blood ; 

I'm glad the States is keepin step an marchin on es one, 

From Floridy to Mexico, from Maine to Oregun ; 

An I will mention three men. whose teachins I despise, 

Who filled my heart with hatred an stuffed my ears with lies, 

An dulled my brain with ignorance, and bandaged up my eyes, 

An sent me thet fool's urrand from the upper Tennessee — 

I 'lude to Jeff'son Davis an Robert Toombs an me ! 



THE OLD SCHOOL-HOUSE. 

The old red school-house on the hill — 
I see it wheresoe'er I go — 

The forge, the brook, the si aging mill. 
The lot where apple-blossoms blow — 
I smell their fragrance now, although 

New visions flit, as visions will. 

Old Memory plays such tricks with me ! 
Beyond the pomp of lettered men 

And arrogance of art. I see 

That teacher tall who comes again 
With smile and kindly voice as when 

I learned my letters at his knee. 

Whene'er the smile his face forsook, 
And loud he summoned to his side 

An urchin with neglected book. 

Abundant love still conquered pride — 
The lightness of his arm belied 

The awful sternness of his look ! 

Above the turmoil of the chase. 

The victim's groan, the victor's cheer, 

The clang of Mammon's maddening race, 
And Pleasure's laugh and Sorrow's tear, 
Once more his gentle word I hear — 

Once more I see his patient face. 

New visions flit, as phantoms will : 
The Parthenon and Hadrian's hall, 

King David's tower, Siloam's rill, 

And Memnon's lips and Karnak's wall : 
I see behind and through them all, 

The old red school-house on the hill. 



152 

Beneath that hill the twilight hour 
Fell on the smithy dark and low, 

Where, symbol of mysterious power, 
Our rustic Vulcan, blow on blow, 
Still wrought, his fiery arm aglow — 

His hammer in a starry shower ! 

The old red school-house ! — 'round about 
A listening field of daisies white, 

Whose hearts responded to the shout 
That told of jocund spirits light, 
And thrilled with sweet regret at night 

When earth was still and school was out ! 

In hurrying throngs I often see 
That master whom I idly praise — 

(I learned my letters at his knee — ) 
And catch a glimpse in crowded ways 
Of them who in the far-off days 

Sat on the lowest bench with me. 

And one was there whose sacred kiss, 
Seal of a sister's loving heart, 

My young step led from aught amiss — 
Fair child of Nature's artless art, 
Now sleeping in the field apart — 

Sweet acre of the Silences. 

So Fancy plays her tricks with me ! 
While that old school-house on the hill 

Forever anchored seems to be, 

New visions fade as phantoms will, 
And that friend, kind and patient — still 

I learn my lessons at his knee. 



b'/ 



